IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 1506 of 2009 Between: C.B. Gawsane @ Chandrakanth Gawsane S/o. B.M. Gawsane R/o.16-1-570, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Town Planning Officer, Circle No.1, Sardar Mahal, Charminar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the petitioner house bearing Municipal No.16-1-570 admeasuring 239 sq. yards out of total extent of 975 sq. yards situated at Saidabad, Hyderabad without any notice and due process of law vioaltion of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g), 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents not to demolish petitioner house bearing Municipal No.16-1-570 admeasuring Ac.239 sq. yards out of total extent of 975 sq. yards situated at Saidabad, Hyderabad and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI.SUNIL GAWASANE Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he is the absolute owner of the House No.16-1-570, admeasuring 1125 sq. yards having purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 24.8.1978 from one R.Vijay Laxmi Reddy and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of it. Now, the petitioner’s main grievance is that the respondents, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, are trying to acquire 239 sq. yards of his site by demolishing his house for the purpose of widening the road. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not at all against the road-widening programme proposed by the respondents nor has he any objection to the acquisition of his land, however, he submits that the respondents have to take the petitioner’s consent and pay proper compensation before acquiring the land in question as contemplated under Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has submitted that so far they have not issued any notice to the petitioner proposing to acquire the land in question, and in case the respondents propose to acquire any piece of land belonging to the petitioner, they shall certainly issue notice to the petitioner and follow the due process under law. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that the respondents shall certainly follow due process under law before going to acquire the petitioner’s land, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The respondents are directed not to demolish the structures or take away any portion of the petitioner’s property and not to dispossess him without following due process of law under Sections 146 and 147 of the Act or holding private negotiations or initiating Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 2nd February, 2009 bcj