IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 9598 of 2008 Between: Shaik Rahmthumaiah, S/o.Shaik Fakruddin, R/o.D.No.19/399,Haji Gattar Saheb Street,Kadapa City Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Kadapa rep.by its Commissioner, Kadapa Dist 2 The Superintendent Engineer, R&B Kadapa Dist 3 The Executive Engineer Roads &Buildings Kadapa Dist .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the commercial shop situated in D.No.3-270 situated to the eastern side of N.T.R Statue and falls in the line of R.S Road,Kadapa City & Dist belongs to the petitioner as arbitrary illegal highhanded contrary to the procedure envisaged under the provisions of Sections 146,and 147 of the Hyd Municipal Corporation Act 1955 and violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of the Fundamental and constitutional Rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14,19,21,&300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the commercial shop situated in D.No.3-270 situated to the Eastern side of N.T.R statue and falls in the Line of R.S Road, Kadapa City & Dist belongs to the petitioner without following due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3: GP for Roads & Buildings Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri S.I. Newton The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri S.I. Newton, learned counsel for the respondent- Municipal Corporation of Kadapa. In [aphc1]this case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent- Municipal Corporation has been seeking to acquire his shop [aphc2]for the purpose of widening the existing road, without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the respondent-Corporation has been offering meager amounts as compensation for the shop sought to be taken possession of by them. It is further asserted that the value offered by the Corporation is, in fact, less than the value prevailing for the land as also the value fixed by the revenue establishment of the State Government and, hence, the petitioner is not interested in agreeing to receive the compensation offered by the respondent-Corporation and deliver possession of his shop. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner does not give his consent, the Municipal Corporation cannot insist upon him to part with his valuable properties, without following the due process of law and in particular, the procedure prescribed under Section 146 read with 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 or the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents are, therefore, directed to follow the procedure available either under Section 146 read with 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and acquire the shop in question and without adopting such a procedure, they should not insist upon the petitioner to part with the possession of his shop. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 29th April 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} [aphc1] [aphc2]