IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 757 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/06/2008 in WP NO : 4752 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Rajender Pershad S/o. Late Bajrang Pershad R/o. H.No.22-5-117/1, Suraj Bhan Building, Gulzar Marg, Hydearbad. 2 Mukesh S/o. Rajender Pershad R/o. H.No.22-5-118 (Part), Suraj Bhan Building, Gulzar Marg, Hydearbad. 3 Roop Karan S/o. Late Bajrang Pershad R/o. H.No.22-5-118 (Part), Suraj Bhan Building, Gulzar Marg, Hydearbad. 4 S.B. Singh S/o. Late S.S. Talwar Suraj Bhan Building, Gulzar Marg, Hydearbad. 5 S.D. Singh S/o. Late S.S. Talwar Suraj Bhan Building, Gulzar Marg, Hydearbad. 6 Syed Abdul Shakeel S/o. Late Syed Omer, R/o. H.No.22-5-120, Suraj Bhan Building, Gulzar Marg, Hydearbad. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Office at Municipal Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Office at Municipal Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No.I, Sardar Mahal, Hyderabad. 5 The Zonal Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, South Zone, Sardar Mahal, Charminar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.VALLURIHANMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the common order passed in W.P.Nos. 4752 and 8257 of 2008, dated 25-6-2008, this appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Advocates and have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. By virtue of the petition, the appellant-petitioner had challenged the proceedings pertaining to widening of the road. It is pertinent to note that at no stage the appellant-petitioner had challenged the land acquisition proceedings. The proceedings are over and the compensation has already been deposited in the Civil Court. The appellant is a tenant in respect of the properties, which have been acquired for the purpose of widening of the road. The only grievance, which has been made in this appeal by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant is with regard to not selecting center of the road and thereby, according to the appellant, more land from the side where his building is situated, is acquired. According to him, center point of the road has not been properly selected and, therefore, acquisition proceedings are improper. We do not find any substance in this submission, for the reason that it is for the authorities to decide as to how the road should be widened. We do not find any substance in the appeal and appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. _________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 25th July, 2008. _________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR