THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.21197 of 2011 Dated 18th August, 2011 Between: Syed Hafeezullah Hussaini …Petitioner And The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Jammali Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri C.Damodar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in threatening to demolish the petitioner’s property bearing H.No.5-7- 10 of Nampally (Ek Minar Masjid to Darussalam Road), Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of the above- mentioned property under the gift settlement deed, dated 12.08.1999, executed by his mother by name, Smt.Jeelani Begum. The petitioner traced his mother’s title to the year 1930 and relies upon the documents, such as municipal records, electrical bills, municipal tax receipts etc., to substantiate his claim of ownership and possession over the property. When there was a threat of demolition of the petitioner’s building, he along with five others filed W.P.No.13001 of 2003 against the respondents. This Court while observing that the petitioners have not given consent for acquisition and that the Corporation has to initiate proceedings either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under Sections 146 and 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to negotiate with the petitioners for consent and in case they do not agree for private negotiations, the respondents shall initiate proceedings for acquisition of the lands in accordance with law. By letter, dated 20.06.2011, respondent No.2 has directed the petitioner to produce the ownership documents by purporting to place reliance on the opinion of the Land Acquisition Officer that the property is declared as Government vacant municipal land. In my opinion, the order in W.P.No.13001 of 2003 binds the respondents. The said order proceeded on the premise that the respondents cannot dispossess the petitioner or demolish the petitioner’s building without initiating acquisition proceedings. If the respondents have disputed the petitioner’s title, they ought to have raised necessary plea in that regard in the previous writ petition itself. In the guise of lack of title over the property in question, the petitioner cannot be subjected to the notice such as the one, dated 20.06.2011, noted above. In the premises as above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the property without initiating proceedings either under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under Sections 146 and 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as directed by this Court in W.P.No.13001 of 2003. It is needless to observe that if the respondents dispute the petitioner’s title, they have to approach the competent civil Court for declaration of their title. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.25811 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th August, 2011 VGB