IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21198 of 2008 Between: Kamruddin, S/o. Abdul Sultan Hirani, R/o. H.No. 5-8-37/4A, Fateh Sultan Lane, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. byits Commissioner, Municipal Complex, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No.7, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byits Secretary, Muncipal Administration Department, Secretariat, 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not initiating the Land Acquisition proceedings before dispossessing the petitioner from his premises No. 10-1- 176, 7 & 8 situated at Masab Tank, Hyderabad as illegal, void in contravention of Sections 146 and 147 of H.M.C. Act and consequently direct the respondents not to disposses the petitioner form the above premises without initiating the Land Acquisition Proceedings in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD.ZIA-UL-HAQ Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA(SC FOR MPL(TA)) The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by Kamruddin assailing the action of the respondent in trying to dispossess him without following due process of law. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of premises bearing No.10-1-17/6, 7 & 8, admeasuring 33.00 Sq.yards situated at Masab Tank, Hyderabad. According to the petitioner, the respondents are contemplating to dispossess him from the land in his occupation for road widening without following the due process of law. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned standing counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of R1 and R2. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration, received notice on behalf of R3. Learned standing counsel appearing for R1 and R2, on instructions, submits that the respondents will follow due process of law in the event of the premises in possession of the petitioner is required for road widening. Recording the aforesaid submission, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to follow due process of law in the event of the premises in possession of the petitioner is required for road widening. No costs. _________ 26-09-2008 rkk