The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No. 26684 of 2011 Date: 31-10-2011 Between: Akkem Anjaiah and another ..... Petitioners and 1.The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, rep. by its Vice Chairman, Tarnaka, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: None Appeared Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.Ravindra Yanamandra The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to forbear from utilizing/consuming any part of the land admeasuring Ac.10-34 guntas in Survey No.67/2 of Jalpally Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for the purpose of formation of P7 road (for GMR Airport) or for any other purpose, without acquiring the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. I have heard the submissions of Sri Ravindra Yanamandra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1- Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, and perused the record. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the above-mentioned land. When an order was passed on 24-05-2008 by respondent No.3- Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, seeking to resume the said land, the petitioners filed WP.No.12179 of 2008. After a detailed hearing, this Court, by Order, dated 05-07-2011, allowed the said Writ Petition and quashed the resumption order passed by respondent No.3. This Court, in the said Order, held as under: “In the light of the admitted fact that the patta, granted in favour of Maqdoom Shareef, who is the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, was much prior to the commencement of the revised policy vide G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25-07-1958, and in the absence of any finding that the said patta contained the condition against alienation, the very invocation of the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 by respondent No.1 is wholly without jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. As a consequence thereof, Proceedings No.A/1448/07, dated 24-05-2008, issued by respondent No.1 is quashed. In my opinion, in the light of the above-reproduced Order of this Court, the respondents are bound to acquire the land, if they need the same for any public purpose. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 stated that his client has already given a requisition to respondent Nos.2 and 3 as the said land is needed for formation of P7 road. In the event of respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking to proceed with formation of P7 road, they are bound to acquire the land in question. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to initiate proceedings, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of the entire land in question or any part thereof, which is needed for formation of road, before taking over the same. As a sequel, WPMP.No.32932 of 2011 is disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 31st October, 2011 LUR