IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15309 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Shareef S/o Mohd Ibrahim, R/o H. No. 11-2-923/1, Habeeb Nagar, Nampally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant City Planner, Circle V, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Tankbund, Hyderabad, rep by its Commissioner, 3 Smt. Afzalunnisa Begum, W/o Mohd. Mouzam Ali r/o H. No. 10-2-339, Mallepally, Hyderabad. 4 Mohd. Mouzam Ali, S/o Not Known to the petitioner, r/o H. No. 10-2-339, Mallepally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent and his staff dated 12-07-2008 orally threatening to demolish the petitioner Mulgi No. 10-2-337, Situated at mallepally, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the spirit of the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court delivered by the Division Bench in WP No. 6317 of 1996 dated 15-3- 2001, Reported in 2001 (3) ALD (DB) and Consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the above referred premises without initiating Land Acquisition Proceedings strictly in accordance with the spirit of the above Judgment, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD.ZIA-UL-HAQ Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 15309 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petitin has been filed by Mohd. Shareef claiming to be the tenant of premises bearing NO. 10-3-337, situated at Mallepally, Hyderabad having taken on lease from Smt. Afzalunnisa Begum- Respondent No.3. The period of tenancy is being extended from time to time. 2. The petitioner developed his business in the aforesaid premises. He is also paying Municipal Tax regularly. 4th Respondent is the husband of 3rd respondent and they have been pressuring the petitioner to vacate the premises. In the month of February, 2008 staff of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad demanded the petitioner to vacate the shop to extent of 14 feet as the same is required for road widening. According to the petitioner, he is required to put on notice in the event a part of the premises possessed by him as a tenant is required for road widening. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation takes notice. 4. Learned standing counsel, on instructions, reports that in the event of the part of the premises which is in occupation of the petitioner is required for road widening, the respondents 1 and 2 will follow the due process of law. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to follow due process of law in the event of portion of the premises in occupation of the petitioner is required for road widening. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 28th July, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 15309 OF 2008 28th July, 2008.