THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 19109 of 1999 DATE: 24-01-2008 Between : Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kandlikar … Petitioner And The District Collector, Nizamabad and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 19109 of 1999 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents in demolishing the petitioners premises bearing House No.5-6-555, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad without paying any compensation is arbitrary and illegal. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the first respondent proposed widening of the existing roads in Nizamabad Town and in the process, several structures including the compound wall of the building in question belonging to the petitioner were demolished. It is alleged that the petitioner lost 200 square yards out of his premises and in spite of repeated requests made, the respondents neither paid any compensation nor provided alternative site. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Nizamabad denying the alleged demolition and stating that the petitioner himself had handed over the effected area of 30’ x 50’ i.e. 166.66 square yards in favour of the Municipality at the time of obtaining the building permission for the purpose of 100 feet wide road. It is further stated that the petitioner never raised any objection even during the construction of side drains by the Roads and Buildings Department as per 100’ wide M.P. Road for the purpose of drainage works. No affidavit in reply is filed by the petitioner contradicting the stand taken by the respondents nor any other material is placed before this Court to substantiate the allegation that the respondents had indulged in high handed demolition. In the circumstances, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to work out the appropriate common law remedy for redressal of his grievance, if he so chooses. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date:24-01-2008 KLP