IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A. NOS. 492 of 2004 & 1725 OF 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/04/2002 in W.P.No.8368 of 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Dr. Bandi Appa Rao, S/o Nagabhushanam, R/o D.No. 54-16- 10/4, 2nd Lane, Venkateswara Nagar Colony, Vijayawada-520 008 (A.P). ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Ch. Pardha Saradhi, S/o Rama Rao, R/o Vinayaka Flats, Sree Rama Chandra Nagar, Vijayawada. 2 Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Station House Officer, 8th Town Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME & WRIT APPEAL NO : 1725 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23/09/2002 in Review W.P.M.P.No.18997 of 2002 in WP No: 8368 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Dr.Bandi Appa Rao S/o.Nagabhushanam D.No.54-16-10/4 2nd Lane, Venkateswara Nagar Colony, Vijayawada - 520 008 ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Ch.Pardha Saradhi S/o.Rama Rao R/o.Vinayaka Flats, Sree Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada. 2 Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, Vijayawada, Krishna District . 3 The Station House Officer, 8th Town Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A.No.492 OF 2004 & W.A.No:1725 of 2002. COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) W.A.492 of 2004 is filed by the appellant against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.8368 of 2002 on 26-04- 2002 whereas W.A.1725 of 2002 is filed by the appellant against the order of the learned single Judge in Rev.W.P.M.P.No:18997 of 2002 on 23.9.2002. Since the parties and the issue involved in both the appeals, are one and the same, they are disposed of by a common judgment. Appellant in both the writ appeals, is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. 1st respondent in both the writ appeals is the writ petitioner. He filed the writ petition seeking to direct the 1st respondent to remove the obstruction made by the 3rd respondent by raising cement pillar in the middle of the Municipal Road, leading from Sri Ramachandra Nagar Colony, 36th Division of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation to the National Highway No.5. The learned single Judge having heard the learned standing counsel for the Municipalities who submitted that the matter is under consideration and necessary action would be taken after giving notice to the 3rd respondent, disposed of the writ petition at the stage of admission directing the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation to remove the obstruction on the middle of the road within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Having aggrieved by the same, the present W.A.492 of 2004 is preferred by the 3rd respondent. Meanwhile, the 3rd respondent filed Rev.W.P.M.P.18997 of 2002 before the learned single Judge seeking to review the order passed in W.P.No:8368 of 2002 on the ground that the writ petition was disposed of without notice to him and as a matter of fact, he raised the cement pillers in his own land for protecting it and that the writ petitioner has suppressed the said fact. The learned single Judge having heard both the learned counsel and having observed that for initiation of action for acquisition of land either under section 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act or under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the willingness of the owner or the persons who claim it, is not required as the Government acquires the land in exercise of power under eminent domain, dismissed the review petition. Having aggrieved by the same, W.A.1725 of 2002 is preferred by the 3rd respondent. Heard the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record. A perusal of the material on record makes it clear that at the time of disposal of the main writ petition, learned standing counsel for the Municipalities submitted that the matter is under consideration and necessary action would be taken after giving notice to the 3rd respondent. On that submission only, the learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to remove the obstruction on the middle of the road within a period of one Week from the date of that order. Apart from that, while disposing of the review application, the learned standing counsel submitted that the corporation requested the owner of the land to submit a sketch and his willingness for acquisition of the land. In this background of the matter, we see no illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned in both the writ appeals. Both the writ appeals are devoid of merits and as such, they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order or the orders impugned herein, will not preclude the authorities from acquiring the land in accordance with law under the provisions of section 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. __________________________ Justice T. MEENA KUMARI ________________________________ Justice VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 1st April, 2009. Dvs/Kh HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A.No.492 OF 2004 & W.A.1725 of 2002 (Common judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Smt.Justice T.Meena Kumari) Dated 1st April, 2009.