IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 6337 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Khaja Miah, S/o. Md. Mehtab Sahab, R/o. H.No.22-5-717/1, Panjeshah, Charminar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Tankbund, Hyderabad. 2 Asst. City Planner, Circle-I, Charminar, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in trying to demolish the premises bearing Door No..22-5-717/1, Panjeshah, Charminar, Hyderabad without following the procedure contemplated under Sec.147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 without following the procedure contemplated under Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and the writ petition Nos.4571/2008 & 4572/2008, dated 11.03.2008 as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious and malafide. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed Counsel for the Respondents : Smt. Kalpana Ekbote The Court made the following O R D E R: In this[aphc1] case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has been seeking to acquire his house[aphc2] for the purpose of widening the road existing, without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the respondent-Corporation has been offering meager amounts as compensation for the houses sought to be taken possession of by them. It is further asserted that the value offered by the Corporation is, in fact, less than the value prevailing for the land as also the value fixed by the revenue establishment of the State Government and, hence, the petitioner is not interested in agreeing to receive the compensation offered by the respondent-Corporation and deliver possession of the house. It is needless to observe that the Municipal Corporation cannot take possession of the property owned by the citizens without recourse to law. The respondents are, therefore, directed to follow the procedure laid down in the Land Acquisition Act and acquire the house in question and without adopting such a procedure, it should not insist upon the petitioner to part with the possession of the house. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 26th March 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} [aphc1] [aphc2]