THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.24267 OF 2005 DATED:15.11.2005 Between: V.Narayana …Petitioner And The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.24267 OF 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is a tenant of shop bearing No.1-11-91, Shyamlal Building, Begumpet, Hyderabad. The respondent sent a communication to petitioner on 14.6.2005. The same is self-explanatory and reads as under. It is to inform you that MCH has taken up road widening proposal of S.P.Road starting from Hyderabad Public School to Y.M.C.A. and proposed to widen this road to 150’.00’’ as per ZDP so as to ensure free flow of traffic. In this regard MCH has taken up the widening of this road under Section 146 & 147 of the HMC Act, 1955 i.e. u/S 146 (private negotiations) & u/S. 147 (Land Acquisition) and we are approaching you u/S146 under private negotiations and your valuable cooperation is required to MCH without which it is not possible to achieve the proposed road width, which is in the interest of pubic at large. In the said widening proposal your premises bearing No.1-11-91 & 92 is getting effected to a depth of 30’.0’’ & 5’.0’’ admeasuring 199.62 Sq.Mts plan indicating the effected portion together with consent letter proforma are enclosed and request you to exercise your consent to handover advance possession of the effected area in road widening to MCH in larger interest of public. The MCH will, however, pay compensation to the other effected structures, if any, as per the structural valuation and extend all benefits as provided in the G.O.Ms.No.483 MA, dt.24.8.1998 for carrying the re-development in the balance area. Aggrieved by the above communication, the Writ Petition is filed before this Court. A reading of the above communication would show that the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) has sought consent of the petitioner tenant for advance possession in larger public interest. It does not, however, mean that in the event of tenant of the property not willing to give consent, the respondent MCH would resort to high-handed action. In such case, the MCH has to necessarily resort to provisions of Section 147 of the Act. In Srichand Rohra v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad while dealing with similar matter, this Court made the following observations. A reading of the said letter does not in any way indicate that there is any truth in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. What was sought to by issuing such letter is, a request was made to the landlords to give consent to handover advanced possession in the larger public interest. It was clearly informed that MCH will pay compensation to the effected structures as per the Rules and extent all benefits as per the Rules. If landlord desires to avail the benefits to be extended by the MCH on his own volition the landlord may give consent. If the landlord is not willing the letter nowhere compels one to part with the land for widening the road in which event as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel the MCH will have to resort to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In similar circumstances, W.P.No.21341 of 2000 dated 7.11.2000 and W.P.No.22216 of 2000 dated 16.11.2000 were disposed of by me with direction to respondent –Corporation to take necessary action as per the Land Acquisition Act or the HMC Act, if the landlords are not willing to give their consent. I also directed that if the consent is already given by the landlord/owner, the MCH shall be at liberty to proceed with further action for widening the road. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench in M/s.Ushodaya Publications v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad the MCH has to obtain consent even from the tenants without which the road widening work cannot be taken up unless MCH takes action for acquisition of land as per law. Needless to mention that unless proper procedure is contemplated and initiated, the MCH, in law, is not entitled to either forcibly take possession or demolish the structures in the area. In this case, the petitioner has not given his willingness/consent to give advance possession to MCH for the road widening project. Needless to mention that Corporation has to initiate action under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Till then, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to enjoy the property, nor the MCH can demolish the structures for the purpose of road widening. The Writ Petition with the above observations is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ 15.11.2005 (V.V.S.RAO, J) bnr Note:Issue CC in two days. (B.O) bnr