THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.32944 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not notifying the property of the petitioners 1 and 2 bearing H.No.1-75/2/9 in Survey No.23 (part), 1416.18 sq. mts., with existing go down, situated at Gachibowli village, Serilingamaplly Mandal and Municipality, R.R. District and threatening to demolish the same without initiating proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as arbitrary and illegal. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that petitioners 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the aforementioned property having purchased the same vide a registered sale deed, dated 29-12-2003 and ever since the date of purchase, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. They leased out the said property to the 3rd petitioner to use the same as Gas Cylinder go down. The 3rd petitioner is running the business from the year 1991 onwards. While so, the 2nd respondent issued a letter, dated 01-11-2011 requesting to hand over the area affected under road widening for proposed 120’ master plan road from Shilpa lay out to Gachibowli junction. It is further stated in the notice that the 1st respondent would arrange to reconstruct the compound wall to the extent affected in the proposed road widening and as far as affected portion of land is concerned, they would be allowed to avail the concessions as prescribed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 01-04-2008 for the balance area. After considering affected portion in the proposed road widening, the petitioners have not preferred to give consent and avail the said benefits and the same was informed to the officials of the respondents who visited the property subsequent to above notice. Respondents till today did not invoke any land acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Suddenly, on 12-12-2011 the officials of the respondents visited the property and made markings by informing the 3rd petitioner that they would demolish the compound wall and as such, they would make alternative arrangements. The 3rd petitioner who is storing filled and unfilled gas cylinders are under certain prescribed conditions of safety and the distance has to be maintained around the storage place as per the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization Guidelines and Rules. If the respondents notify the acquisition proceedings, they would make alternative arrangements to safeguard the gas go down. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that without following due process of law, the land of the petitioners is being taken forcibly and hence, he prays to issue a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the land in question. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation contended that after following due process of law as contemplated under Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) appropriate decision would be taken in accordance with law. 5. Though notice, dated 01-11-2011 relating to the land in Survey No.41 and 42 to an extent of 193 sq. mts., was issued, the petitioners sought a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the house of the petitioners bearing H.No.1-75/2/9 in Survey No.23 to an extent of 1416.18 sq. mts., with existing go down. Prima facie this notice does not relate to the land in survey number as prayed for in the writ petition. Therefore, it is not a fit case to give a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the land in question. However, if the land of the petitioners is required for the purpose of road widening, the respondents are directed to follow due procedure as contemplated under Sections 146 and 147 of the Act. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 14-12-2011 Hsd