THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13909 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner owns property in H.No.6-3-680, situated at Punjagutta, Hyderabad abutting the road between Punjagutta Cross Roads and Green Land Tri-junction. A notice, dated 29.05.2006 under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was served upon the petitioner requiring him to submit his claim as regards an extent of 161.89 square yards of land proposed to be acquired for widening of the road. The petitioner contends that part of his property was acquired earlier on two occasions and the impugned notice was issued without even initiating proceedings under the Act. He contends that no notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act were published and that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction. He further contends that his property alone is being chosen for widening of the road from time to time. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit stating inter alia that in view of increase in traffic on the road, proposals were submitted for widening of the road. The allegation of the petitioner that the properties only on one side of the road are being chosen is denied. In its counter-affidavit, respondent No.2 furnished the particulars of the notifications published under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act and it is stated that every step has been taken strictly in accordance with law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is under the impression that the impugned notice under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act was issued without there being any notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act. The legal submission that a notification under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act cannot be issued unless there exists notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act is correct. The fact, however, remains that notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act were published in the District Gazette on 29.05.2006 and 30.05.2006 respectively proposing to acquire an extent of 161.89 square yards of land of the petitioner and other affected portions on the road. The petitioner obviously was not aware of this. The allegation of the petitioner that his property alone is being acquired from time to time is not correct. From the sketch filed by the petitioner depicting the properties that are affected on account of widening of the road, it is clear that the acquisition was resorted to on both sides of the road. Viewed from any angle, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is left open to the petitioner to put forward necessary claims for payment of compensation in accordance with law, if the same has not been paid. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 31.05.2010. kdl