HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17774 OF 2008 Date: 15th July 2010 Between: B. Srinivas & others. … Petitioners And Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, rep. by its Vice-Chairman … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17774 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Urban Development Authority. There is no representation on behalf of petitioners. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not taking steps under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of the property admeasuring 378 square metres, covered by Survey Nos.328/1 and 330, situated at Gudimalkapur, Rethibowli, Hyderabad, as illegal. Petitioners claim that they are the owners and possessors of the aforesaid property and when adverse entries are made in the Town Survey Records, they approached the Civil Court by filing a suit in O.S.No.2086 of 1997 on the file of the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the said suit was decreed by a judgment and decree, dated 10th December 2003. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners that on the ground that the aforesaid land is required for the purpose of road widening, respondents are interfering with the possession of the petitioners without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent- Urban Development Authority. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the land, which the petitioners are now claiming as its owners, is classified as G.V.R. Kalva, as such, land acquisition proceedings are not initiated in respect of the said land. At the same time, it is stated that if the respondents require the said land, they will initiate proceedings for its acquisition as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. It is further stated that very recently, requisition is made to acquire the land admeasuring 170 square yards, as the same is required for public purpose. Respondents have also denied the interference as alleged by the petitioners. Though there appears some dispute with regard to the ownership of the land in question, but it is stated that so far, no acquisition proceedings are initiated and that if the said land is required for any public purpose, they will acquire the land by invoking the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further stated that after acquisition proceedings, necessary compensation will also be paid to the real owners of the land as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the denial of interference by the respondent-Urban Development Authority and also the statement made in the counter affidavit that in case if this piece of land is required for any public purpose, they will acquire the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition placing on record the statement made by the respondents in the counter affidavit to the above effect. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th July 2010 ajr