IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER 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 : 1792 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 31/10/2008 in WP NO : 13689 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. Sakeena Begum, W/o. Late Zahuruddin, R/o. 20-7-308, Fateh Darwaza, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Land Acquisition Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 3 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner and Special Officer Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:DR.I.SUJATHA M/S. I.L.N.SASTRY, LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) 1. Being aggrieved by a common order passed in W.P.No. 19269 of 2007 and 13689 of 2008, this appeal has been filed so far as W.P.No. 13689 of 2008 is concerned. 2. The land acquisition proceedings have been challenged in the aforestated petition by the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that 18.3 Sq. yards of land belonging to the petitioner was required for the purpose of road widening and, therefore and after undergoing necessary procedure under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land in question belonging to the petitioner had been acquired. The acquisition proceedings were challenged in the said petition. 3. After hearing the concerned Advocates and looking to the facts of the case, the petition has been rejected by the learned single Judge and, therefore, this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though there was no urgency, urgency clause was applied and yet possession of the land in question was not taken promptly as required under the provisions of the Act by the Government authorities. 5. Upon hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, we do not find any substance in the argument for the reason that widening of the road was not an urgent matter. Moreover we find that the petitioner had resisted in the matter of giving possession of the land in question and, therefore, some delay had been caused because of the said resistance. In our opinion, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of his own resistance. 6. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, there is no substance in the appeal and the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th December, 2008. GRR