IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 359 of 2001 Between: 1 Mohammed Osman, S/o. Shaik Fareed, R/o.8-1-19, Bodhan Road, Nizamabad. 2 Smt. Bilkis Banu, W/o. Muneer Ahmed, R/o.8-1-10, Bodhan Road, Nizamabad. 3 B. Atma Ram, S/o. Veeraiah, R/o.5-6-566/18, Nizamabad. 4 Mohammed Asadullah Khan, S/o. Abdullah Khan, R/o.8-1-33, Bodhan Road, Nizamabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Nizamabad District. 2 The Nizamabad Municipality, Rep.by it's Municipal Commissioner, Nizamabad. ...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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle the compensation amounts or to allot alternative sites for the areas effected in the road widening scheme with regard to the petitioners properties and consequently declare the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in No.B2/2920/99-2000 dated: 19-12-2000 as illegal, null, void and arbitrary and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: MR.J.KANAKAIAH The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners submit that they are the owners of the certain buildings in Nizamabad Town, which were affected in the road widening; therefore, the file WP.No.30519 of 1997, which was disposed of on 02.01.1998 directing the respondents to follow the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act after issuing proper notices for demolition of the properties of the petitioners. But without taking proper steps, the respondents have demolished their buildings in 1998 without paying compensation and without providing any alternative occupation in respect of the properties demolished for road widening. 2. Insofar as this writ petition is concerned, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have provisionally allotted shops in the Municipal Complex at Tilak Gardens as rehabilitation to the affected persons in the road widening on the condition that the allottees must pay Rs.50,000/- towards goodwill and monthly rent of Rs,2,000/- to each shop in lieu of the compensation payable to the affected persons; but the petitioner represented to the respondents that they are not in a position to pay the amount, on the other hand the respondents have notified the auction of the leasehold rights of the shops vide public notification dated 19.12.2000. The petitioners question the said notification seeking a direction to the respondents either to settle the compensation or allot alternative sites to them and to consequently declare the notification dated 19.12.2000 as illegal. 3. Counter has been filed stating that the Government has taken a decision for allotment of shops on condition of payment of Rs.50,000/- towards goodwill to the persons whose shops were affected while they were residing as tenants but not as owners. The petitioners, being owners, were provisionally allotted shops on payment of six months advance rent of Rs.12,000/- and after provisional allotment, series of notices have been issued to the petitioners asking them to enter into a lease agreement and take over the occupation of the shops; but none of the petitioners responded to the said notices, therefore final notice dated 29.09.1999 was sent by registered post acknowledgement due asking the petitioners to execute the lease agreement and take over the occupation of the shops by fulfilling other formalities, but they did not turn up. Another final notice dated 04.12.1999 was served on them, in spite of service of the said notice, the petitioners did not come forward and shops remained idle for more than two years, which seriously affected the financial interest of the municipality. It is further stated that pursuant to the auction notification dated 19.12.2000, the auction proposed to be held on 18.01.2000 was postponed to 31.01.2001. In the auction held on 31.01.2001, the four shops, which were allotted earlier to the petitioners bearing shop Nos.42, 43, 61 and 63 were put for open auction and allotted to the successful bidders by executing the lease agreements. 4. In view of the fact that auction for the un-disposed four shops of the petitioners was already completed and the successful bidders entered into lease agreements, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. However, in respect of the claim of the petitioners that their properties have been affected in the road widening, if the compensation is not already paid, it is open to the petitioners to make a fresh representation before the respondents and if the respondents fail to consider the same, the petitioners may approach this Court seeking compensation or take appropriate action in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 3, 2008 DSK