THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1317 OF 2008 AND WRIT APPEAL No.1316 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard Sri V.Venkatramana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri Mohan Reddy, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents, in both the writ appeals. Both the writ appeals have been ﬁled questioning the common order, dated 24.09.2008, passed in W.P.M.P.No.27261 of 2008 in W.P.M.P.No.25527 of 2008 in W.P.No.8246 of 2008 and in W.P.M.P.No.27364 of 2008 in W.P.M.P.No.25486 of 2008 in W.P.No.8247 of 2008, by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The facts, in nutshell, are that earlier, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.8246 of 2008 and 8247 of 2008, ﬁled by the petitioner herein seeking to set aside the award passed by the Government with regard to the premises in question, granted ﬁve months’ time to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question and handover vacant possession of the same to the respondent authorities, by common order dated 16.04.2008. Thereafter, seeking extension of time for vacating the premises, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.M.P.No.25527 of 2008 and W.P.M.P.No.25486 of 2008 respectively in the said writ petitions and the same were ordered permitting the petitioner to shift the industry on or before 30.09.2008, failing which it was left open to the respondent authorities to demolish the structures and take vacant possession of the same. However, again the petitioner sought further time of three months for shifting of the machinery of the industry to the new premises, by ﬁling W.P.M.P.No.27261 of 2008 and W.P.M.P.No.27364 of 2008, but the learned Single Judge refused to grant the same and, accordingly, dismissed the said W.P.M.Ps. by the impugned order. Hence, these writ appeals. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the industry consists of heavy machinery and shifting of the same requires a considerable time, and, therefore, a further period of three months may be granted. He further submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have taken the same into consideration and granted the time sought for by the appellant, instead of dismissing the petitions. Learned Advocate General submits that as long as the appellant causes delay in vacating the premises, laying of outer ring road, for which purpose the premises in question was acquired, will be delayed resulting in loss to the Government. He further submits that the appellant shall be mulcted with the liability to compensate such loss. In reply to the contentions of the learned Advocate General, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is prepared to pay some amount towards such loss. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the counsel on either side, we deem it appropriate to grant a further period of two weeks time i.e., till 15.10.2008 to the appellant for vacating the premises in question, subject to the condition that the appellant pays a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the Director, Outer Ring Road Project, HUDA, Hyderabad. Both the appeals are, accordingly, allowed in part. No order as to costs. ________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _______________ (R.KANTHA RAO,J 26.09.2008 v v