HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.12092 of 2005 Date: December 10, 2009 Between: M/s. Aluminum Industries Ltd., Lingampalli, Hyderabad, rep. by its Divisional Chief Executive Mr. Liyaquat Ali, S/o. Quadar Ali, aged 55 years. … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. … Respondent Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to lay a road from R&B road towards new Municipal office building, Serilingampally, through the land belonging to it, without acquiring the same under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner, which is a Public Limited Co., having its head office in Kundara, Kerala and factories at Kundara, Hyderabad and Hirakud, that its factory in Lingampally, Hyderabad, is located in an area of Acs.100 surrounded by barded wire fencing. It is the grievance of the petitioner-company that though it is the absolute owner and possessor of the said land, respondents are taking steps highhandedly for removing the fencing so as to lay a road from R&B road towards new Municipal office building, Serilingampally, through its land. The Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality, has filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, while, generally, denying the allegations of the petitioner that attempts were made for removal of fencing etc., it is stated that no new road is being laid as alleged by the petitioner and that the existing road is only being used. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land in question. Though it is stated in the counter affidavit that existing road only is being used, but, no material is placed before this court to show that any part of the land of the petitioner is a road as per any approved plan. Moreover in the letter dated 03-09-2004 addressed by the Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality, to the petitioner, the Municipality sought petitioner’s permission to lay the road through its land. That itself shows that the land which is required for the purpose of laying road is not acquired and it also does not belong to Municipality. In the circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents not to lay any road through the land of the petitioner-company without following due process of law. However, it is made clear that if any portion of the land of the petitioner is required for the purpose of laying road, it is open to the respondents to acquire the required portion by following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or obtain consent from the petitioner. ____________________​ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 10, 2009 MRR