IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14112 of 2008 Between: Syed Ahmed S/o. Syed Mahaboob Ali R/o. 10-4-771/82/5 Owaisipura, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Chief Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Asst. City Planner, Circle-10 (Old Circle-5) 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 may be pleased to issue writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in demanding the petitioner to surrender land admeasuring 123.04 Sq. Yards in premises No. 11-5-430, Lakdi Ka Pool, Ayodya Junction, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of Natural Justice and also Art. 300-A of Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondents:SRI R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14112 of 2008 ORDER: The writ petition has been filed by Sri Syed Ahmed with a prayer to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation-1st respondent and the Assistant City Planner with the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad-2nd respondent in demanding the petitioner to surrender land admeasuring 123.04 sq.yards in premises bearing No.11-5-430 situated at Lakdi ka pool, Ayodya Junction, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and also principles of natural justice. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 02.07.2008. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are contemplating to acquire a portion of the premises owned by the petitioner without following due process of law. A further submission has been made that the respondents are contemplating to acquire an extent of 123.04 sq. yards and that if the measurements were taken properly, the property of the petitioner will not be affected. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that in the event of the petitioner not willing to give consent as provided under Section 146 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, the respondents undertake to follow the due process of law, in the event of the site owned by the petitioner is required for road widening. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow the due process of law, in the event of a portion of the premises owned by the petitioner is required for road widening. No order as to costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 17.07.2008 v v