HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23046 of 2003 Date : 04.08.2009 Between : P. Mahesh Kumar & another. …..Petitioners And Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad & 2 others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23046 of 2003 ORDER : The petitioners, who are the owners of the houses bearing Nos.1-9-1/8 and 1-9-1/15, situated at M.G.Road, Medak, seeks directions by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of respondents in taking steps for demolition of their houses without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. As stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the houses bearing Nos.1-9-1/8 and 1-9-1/15, having purchased the same vide registered sale deeds, bearing Nos.458/78 and 686/80 from the earlier owners. It is their grievance that on the ground that some parts of the said house properties are being affected for the purpose of road widening from Wadiyaram cross roads to Sports Authority building, respondents have issued notices, dated 6th of August 2003, for removal of the affected areas within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of said notices. It is their case that as they were not given consent to part with the possession of their properties, and also as no proceedings are initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the notices issued for removal of structures, are illegal and arbitrary. 3. At the stage of admission, this Court, by an order, dated 11.11.2003, granted interim directions, directing the respondents not to demolish the house properties of the petitioners without following due process of law. The said order passed by this Court has been in force all along during the pendency of this writ petition. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent- Director of Town and Country planning. No counter affidavits are filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that on receipt of recommendations of the Municipal Council, Medak, the master plan prepared for Medak town was approved vide G.O.Ms.No.702, Municipal Administration Department, dated 13th December 1992. It is submitted that as much as the master plan is approved, it is for the 3rd respondent- Municipality to implement the approved master plan as per the provisions of the A.P.Town Planning Act, 1920. 6. Heard learned counsel for petitioners. There is no representation on behalf of respondents. 7. In this case, though it is the specific case of the petitioners that they have not given any consent to part with the possession of the house properties, which are being affected for the purpose of road widening, inspite of the same, notices are issued for removal of the structures. It is also stated that neither the house properties of the petitioners nor any part of such properties are notified under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Merely because a master plan is approved with the proposed widening of the road as stated by respondent No.1, no notices can be given straightaway for removal of the structures, in the absence of any consent from the owners of the properties to part with possession. The allegation of the petitioners that no proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, is also not disputed the Municipality, by way of filing any counter affidavit. Further, the impugned notices, dated 6th August 2003 also, do not indicate either any consent is given by the petitioners to part with possession of their properties, or any proceedings are initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, notifying the properties, which are being affected in the proposed road widening. Therefore, the structures belonging to the petitioners cannot be removed, as indicated in the impugned notices, and as such, they are liable to be set aside. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the notices, dated 6th August 2003, issued in Proceedings No.C1/236/2002 are hereby quashed, and respondents are directed not to demolish the houses or any part of the houses of the petitioners, bearing Nos.1-9-1/8 and 1-9-1/15, situated at M.G.Road, Medak. However, it is made clear that if the said properties are required for the purpose of road widening, this order will not preclude the respondents either to negotiate with the petitioner and obtain their consent to part with their properties, or alternatively, to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring the land and structures required for road widening. 9. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th August 2009 ksh/ajr