IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.61 of 2003 Between: 1 Mohammad Younus, S/o. Mohd. Ismail, R/o. 16-2-867/A/1, Ismail Villa, Jeevan Yar Jung Colony, Sayeedabad, Hyderabad. 2 Abdul Khader, S/o. Dawood Saheb, R/o. 20-4-973/A, Chowk, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Assistant City Planner, Abids Circle, M.C.H. Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tankbund, Hyderabad. 3 G. Krishna, S/o. G.K. Narsimhulu, Rep. by his G.P.A. Holder Smt. V.P. Sunitha, R/o. 3-10, Gaganpahad, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may 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 orally threatening the petitioners dt. 1.1.2003 to demolish the Petitioner Mulggies bearing Nos.5-1-496/2, 5-1- 496/3, 4 and 56, Putlibowli, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and also violative of the Division Bench Judgment rendered in W.P.No.6317/1996 dt. 15.3.2001, as Reported in 2001 ALD (3) Page 173 and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish the Premises Nos. 5-1-496/2 of the 1st Petitioner running the business in the name and style "The Deccan Diesel Services and the Premises Nos. 5-1-496-3, 4 & 5, of the 2nd petitioner running the business in the name and style Ummid Traders and Universal Traders, situated without invoking the Provisions of Land Acquisition at Putli Bowli, Hyderabad. Counsel for petitioners: Mr. Mohd. Zia-Ul-Haq Counsel for respondents: Mr. R. Ramachandra Reddy The Court made the following Order: Petitioners, 2 in number, filed this writ petition seeking Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in taking steps for demolition of Mulgies bearing Nos.5-1-496/2, 5-1-496/3, 4 and 56, Putlibowli, Hyderabad, which they are in possession, for the purpose of road widening, without following due process of law, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The third respondent herein is the owner of the aforesaid mulgies and the petitioners claim that they are in possession of the same as tenants. The said mulgies are situated on the main road leading from Putlibowli to Mojamjahi Market junction. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they have not consented to part with the possession of the aforesaid mulgies, for the purpose of road widening; based on the consent given by the third respondent, steps are being taken to demolish the said muglies which are in their possession. 3. The question whether a tenant can be dispossessed from the property which he is in possession, for any public purpose, only based on the consent given by the owner, is considered by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Ushodaya Publications, Hyderabad v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and another [1] . In the aforesaid case, this court has held that the Municipality cannot take possession of the land, which is in occupation of the tenant for the purpose of road widening only basing on the consent of the landlord/landlady. It was further held that in such an event the Municipality has to acquire the property only under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the instant case, though consent is stated to have been given by the third respondent, it appears that petitioners have not consented to part with the property in question and no effort has been made by respondents 1 and 2 to acquire the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before taking steps to dispossess the petitioners. 4. In that view of the matter, following the judgment of the Division Bench referred above, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 not to demolish the property in question, which is in possession of the petitioners, as tenants. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents either to enter into agreement with the petitioners also to part with the possession of the property in question or initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of road widening. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. June 17, 2009 MRR ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP {ANURADHA} [1] 2001 (3) ALD 173 (DB)