IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO W.P. No. 19571 OF 2005 Date: 05.09.2005 BETWEEN: 1. Mohd. Haroon and others …. PETITIONERS Vs. 1. Assistant City Planner, Circle No.1, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Sardarmahal, Charminar, Hyderabad, and another. …. RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No. 19571 OF 2005 ORDER: The petitioners are the residents of commercial buildings situated at Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad. They allege that in connection with road-widening programme of Shah Ali Banda, the first respondent called the petitioners to his office and asked them to surrender their lands by accepting a nominal compensation. The petitioners allege that at the place, where the petitioners property is standing, the land cost even according to the Government basic value register is Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per square yard and market value is Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per square yard. They also allege that the amount offered by the first respondent is very low. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondents in asking them to deliver the land without due process of law is illegal and unconstitutional. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings. I n P.Lakshmana Rao v. Executive Officer, a Division Bench of this Court issued directions to be followed by Municipal authorities, Panchayat authorities and Revenue authorities for acquiring the land for public purpose. Having regard to the decision of the Division Bench, I have considered similar issue in a number of writ petitions and culled out various principles of law to be followed by the Government while acquiring/utilizing the private land for road widening. The principles were reiterated by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Sudershan Reddy in M.Madhavi Latha v. Rajendranagar Municipality. The principles laid down by the Division Bench are as follows. (1). Where a property is required for public purpose viz., widening of roads or for any other purpose, the authorities straightaway cannot take law into their hands and jump into the premises, dispossess or evict the occupants or demolish the property. (2). If the authorities concerned want to take action for eviction/dispossession of the occupants or demolition, they shall issue 60 days’ prior notice notifying as to the nature of the property, the property to whom it belongs and the proposed action calling for explanation/objections, if any, from the occupants. On receipt of such objections, if there is any objection as to the ownership of the property, the authorities should determine the extent of encroachment or unauthorised occupation and also determine whether the property in question belongs to Government/any other local self Government or authority or the occupants and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of the objections, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the occupants. (3). In case where demolition of private property has already been made, the authorities shall determine the damages on the basis of the assessment to be made by the Engineer of the Roads and Buildings Department and disburse the amount of damages quantified forthwith. (4). If the demolition is in respect of local bodies’ Government property, the question of damages does not arise. In such an event, the occupant shall be entitled to remove the material used for the construction. (5). In case of demolition of private property, the authorities concerned shall determine the loss caused to the occupants on the basis of the assessment to be made by the Engineer of R&B Department and on such assessment of damages, the concerned authorities shall take appropriate steps to disburse the amount quantified forthwith. (6). If there is any claim for grant/assessment of the property, the concerned authorities shall consider the same in accordance with law taking into consideration the eligibility and the entitlement of occupants, after making enquiry and till such claim is decided, there shall be status quo obtaining as on today regarding the structures. The writ petition is disposed of as above directing maintenance of status quo as on today. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J.) 5th September, 2005 Js