IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25118 of 2008 Between: Mohammed Sarwar Ali S/o.Late Mohammed Turabali R/o.18-11-2/1/A, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Represented by its Commissioner-cum-Special Officer, Office at Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Represented by its Assistant City Planner, Circle.I Office at Sardar Mahal, Charminar, 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 proposed action of the Respondents No.1 & 2 to acquire the house of the petitioner bearing Municipal No. 18-11-2/1/A, Chandrayanagutta, Keshavagiri, Hyderabad without notice to the petitioner, under Road widening programme and without following due process of law as highly illegal and arbitrary, contrary to sections 146 & 147 of the H.M.C. Act, 1955 and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India any other relief deemed ﬁt and proper be also granted to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ABDUL NAJEEB KHAN Counsel for the Respondents: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Mohammed Sarwar Ali assailing the action of the respondents in contemplating to acquire the house owned by him for road widening without following the due process of law. The petitioner claims to be the owner of house bearing Municipal No.18-11-2/1/A, situated at Chandrayangutta, Keshavagiri, Hyderabad. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondents 1 and 2 are contemplating to lay road by demolishing the house owned by him without following due process of law. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. The factual aspect of the petitioner owning premises bearing Municipal No.18-11-2/1/A is not contradicted by the respondent. 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 the premises owned by the petitioner is required in road widening. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 15th November, 2008 Note: Issue C.C. in 2 days. (B.o) Js.