HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.8793 of 2009 Date : 19-7-2011 Between : Mohd. Waheed Ali .. Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, Standing counsel for GHMC Counsel for respondent No.2: Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notice in Forms-9 and 10 dated 11-7-2008 and award dated 30-8-2007. In the manner the Writ Petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case in detail. It would suffice to note that an extent of 64 sq.yards, comprised in premises bearing No.22-5- 717/1, T.S.No.4/2, 3/2, Block E & A, Ward No.216 of Shaher-e-Hyderabad village, Bahadurpura Mandal, Hyderabad District, was acquired in connection with road widening from Gulzar Houz to Royal Function Hall. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property having inherited the same from his father late Mohammed Khaja Mian. According to him, the whole land acquisition proceedings suffer from procedural illegalities and irregularities. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad–respondent No.2, wherein it is inter alia stated that for the purpose of road widening from Gulzar Houz to Royal Function Hall, eleven different properties including the premises in question were acquired under notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), that urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and that after publishing the draft notification as required under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Gazette, newspapers and in the locality, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and the same was also published. It is further stated that notices under Sections 9(1) and (10) of the Act were issued on 20-4-2007 fixing 8-5-2007 as the date for award enquiry and that as the petitioner refused to take the notice in Form-7, the same was affixed on the door of his house. It is further stated that neither the petitioner appeared during the enquiry nor filed any claim petition in respect of the property in question. It is further stated that after issuing reminder notices on 14-5-2007 and 9-8-2007, final notice in Form-7 was issued on 22-8- 2007, that no one has made any claim with respect to the said property and accordingly award was passed on 30-8- 2007, that in the absence of any claims, the matter was referred under Section 30 of the Act for adjudication and payment of compensation to the original owner and the sums of Rs.5,25,424-37 ps. and Rs.6,52,577/-, towards the land value and the structure value, respectively, were deposited in the court of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 6-2-2008. At the hearing, Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to take the compensation in respect of the property in question. The learned Government Pleader, however, submitted that as no claims were made with respect to the property in question, the matter has already been referred to the Civil Court in which the compensation was already deposited. In my opinion, it is not possible to accept the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act, referred by the respondents for adjudication as to the original owner of the property in question, by the Civil Court, are pending. If the petitioner is interested in the acquired property and consequently in the compensation, he shall be free to file appropriate petition in the pending proceedings in the court of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the event such an application is filed by the petitioner, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad shall entertain and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, interim order dated 28-12-2010 is vacated and WPMP No.40443/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 19-7-2011 AM