IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.849 of 2008 Between: M/s.Gopi Photo Studio, reptd., by its Proprietor- K.Gopi Krishna, S/o.late K.Vishnuvardhan, 8-3-945/1/2, Main road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioners AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Reptd., by its Commissioner, B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Hyderabad. …. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V.M.M.Chary. Counsel for the respondents: Smt.Kalpana Ekbote, Standing Counsel for GHMC for R.1 to R.3. THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.849 of 2008 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of House No.8-3-945/1/2, main road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, apart from being contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). Heard Sri V.M.M.Chary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. In the affidavit filed by the petitioners it is averred that the petitioners are tenants of the two shops on the ground floor of building consisting of ground + first floor situated at the aforementioned premises; petitioner No.1 is running a photo studio in one of the shops for the last more than 40 years and petitioner No.2 is running electronic goods business since 1989. It is further averred that on 13-11-2007 the Commissioner of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (respondent No.1 herein) issued notice to the owner of the building in question in connection with road widening, but no such notice was given to them and that they made a representation on 16-11-2007 to respondent No.1, wherein they have mentioned that they have no objection for road widening, and that respondent No.1 shall demolish only the portion of the building which is required for road widening and not the whole building. The petitioners further averred that while under Section 146 of the Act the land can be acquired under an agreement; and under Section 147 proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 12894 are required to be initiated if no such agreement is arrived at. The petitioners alleged that on 18-1-2008 respondent No.1 visited their shops and stated that since the owner of the building has given “no objection” for demolition of the whole building, the shops occupied by the petitioners will also be demolished. A Full Bench of this Court in Ushodaya Publications, Hyderabad Vs. Commissioner, MCH(1) held that a tenant cannot be dispossessed forcibly without his consent or without following the procedure for acquisition of land under the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. In view of this settled legal position, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that they shall not utilize the premises in occupation of the petitioners subject to the petitioners showing to them that they are lawful tenants of the property, either without their consent or in the absence of the same, without initiating proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 04-2-2008 MNR (1) 2001(3) ALD 173.