IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No: 6155 of 2008 Between: Sri Inder Prasad S/o.Ratanlal Govt of A.P R/o.17-2-472 Saidabad Dhobighat Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant City Planner Town Planning Section Circle No.1 Sardar Mahal, Charminar Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner G.H.M.C .....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 a writ, order directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Letter No.123/RW/ACP/CI/MCH/2007 dt.8-8-2007 of the 1st respondent as null and void and the action of the 1st respondent of orally threatening the petitioner on 11-3-2008 of dismantling boundary wall and structures and forcibly acquiring land of premises number 17-2- 472 saidabad Dhobighat Hyderabad as illegal arbitrary null and void and violative of the Division Bench Judgment rendered in Jilubhai Nambhai Khachar Vs State of Gujarat as reported in AIR 1995 SC 142 as the apex court has held that the deprivation of the property shall be only by authority of law and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish petitioners boundary wall Structures and acquire land of premises bearing No.17-2-472 situated at Saidabad Dhobighat Hyderabad without invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Syed Taraq Quadri Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Smt. Kalpana Ekbote The Court made the following O R D E R: Heard Sri Syed Taraq Quadri, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, the learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The writ petitioner is apprehensive that the 2nd respondent - Commissioner of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation would go about demolishing the portion of his existing building in premises bearing No. 17-2-472, Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad, in pursuance to the notice dated 8th August 2007 served by him without following the procedure prescribed either under Section 146 read with 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the 1955 Act’) or the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the 1894 Act’). The notice dated 8th August 2007 requested the petitioner to handover the possession of the portion, which is likely to be affected by the proposed road widening. It is only an offer to the petitioner. If he accepts for the same, the Municipal Corporation will be able to consider his request at a later point of time with reference to permissible Floor Space Index (FSI) Regulation, apart from paying compensation for the structure, which is sought to be demolished. It is certainly open to the writ petitioner not to accept the offer made by the 2nd respondent, if it is not attractive to him. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation makes it clear that wherever and whenever the land owner does not express his consent for acquisition of his property, when the Corporation is undertaking the road widening exercise, it has been invariably fallowing the procedure prescribed under Section 146 read with 147 of the 1955 Act or the provisions contained in the 1894 Act and without following the said procedure, the Corporation is not unilaterally demolishing any structures belonging to the citizens of Hyderabad. In view of the unequivocal statement made by the learned Standing Counsel, the apprehensions entertained by the writ petitioner are belied. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to demolish the structures belonging to the writ petitioner which have been noticed as likely to be affected by road widening exercise launched by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, without following the procedure either under Section 146 read with 147 of the 1955 Act or the provisions of the 1894 Act. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 25th March 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}