THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15664 OF 2010 Dated: 06.08.2010 Between: A. Pradeep Kumar … Petitioner And 1. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.,rep. by the Commissioner & Special Officer, GHMC, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15664 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioner claims title in respect of property bearing No.8-5-11/1, 2 & 3, Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District wherein he is running a petrol pump by name Vaishnavi Petrol Pump. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in illegally acquiring the open land to an extent of 855 sq. yards i.e., 55’ x 145’ out of the above said property for the purpose of road-widening on N.H.7 in order to widen the inner ring road for providing better connectivity to Shamshabad Air Port and in not releasing the compensation as arbitrary and illegal. It is pleaded that the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, G.H.M.C., had already approved the land value and that a total amount of Rs.4,07,72,000/- was sanctioned towards compensation for four properties including the petitioner’s property which were acquired by consent. It is claimed that so far as the petitioner’s property is concerned, Rs.53,74,530/- was fixed as compensation. It is alleged that as the compensation was not paid, when the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent - R & B Department – he was informed that the compensation would be paid by the 1st respondent. However the 1st respondent claimed that they did not acquire any land out of the petitioner’s property. It is further alleged that though a sum of Rs.53,74,530/- was already sanctioned and approved in respect of the petitioner’s property, some officials of the 1st respondent Corporation like Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Senior Architect and Planner had maliciously withheld the same on untenable and flimsy grounds. Though the petitioner got issued legal notice dated 11.6.2010, there was no response. Hence the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is stated that as per Road Development Plan an extent of 27 sq. yards out of the petitioner’s property was required for road-widening and the same was informed to the petitioner by letter dated 11.3.2008. It is further stated that the Corporation would pay the compensation to the land value of the said 27 sq. yards after the possession is handed over if the consent is given as per Section 146 of GHMC Act. If the petitioner is not willing to provide the said land with consent, the respondent Corporation will initiate land acquisition proceedings to acquire the said land and pay the compensation in accordance with law. The 2nd respondent in its counter-affidavit stated as under: “The Government vide Memo No.661/R- III/2/2008-2 (copy enclosed) has decided that the compensation to the affected structures acquired for widening from Sangeeth Theatre to Aramghar on Inner Ring Road to be paid by GHMC. Hence, the structures and open land were proposed to be acquired by GHMC where the land width of 75’ not available from centre of the road. Already the Right of Way of Inner Ring Road (road boundary) at Mailardevpally in KM 18/3 to KM 18/4 is existing for a width of 150’ i.e., 75’ from centre of the road. The carriageway of road is widened from 4-lane to 8-lane to an extent of 55’ on left side and 44’ on right side (site plan enclosed) which falls within the 150’-0” wide Right of Way. It is submitted that the Vaishnavi Service Station (Petrol Pump) is situated in Km 18/300 – 400 on left side of Inner Ring Road. The petitioner has represented this office for the compensation vide his letter dated 17.01.2008. The petitioner was replied to approach the G.H.M.C. for the compensation if any, vide this office letter No.DB/D1/CRD/2008-09, dated 31.07.2008 (copy enclosed).” I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The grievance of the petitioner in a nutshell appears to be that though the respondents acquired an extent of 855 sq.yards (55’ x 140’) from his property bearing No. No.8-5-11/1, 2 & 3, Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District for the purpose of road- widening, no compensation has been paid so far. Even according to the petitioner, no proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act. It is alleged that the possession was taken by the respondents hurriedly and the petitioner was assured that the compensation would be paid. According to the petitioner the said extent of 855 sq. yards was already utilized for the purpose of the road- widening. However, the 1st respondent Corporation denied the petitioner’s plea. In its counter-affidavit it is stated that the Corporation required only 27 sq. yards out of the petitioner’s property and accordingly they addressed a letter dated 11.3.2008 requesting the petitioner to give his consent and hand over the possession. A copy of the said letter has been placed before this Court by the petitioner himself along with the writ petition. There is no other material to substantiate the petitioner’s plea that 855 sq.yards of the land was utilized as against 27 sq. yards mentioned in the letter dated 11.3.2008. According to the 1st respondent, the possession of even the said 27 sq. yards has not yet been taken. It is not stated even in the counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner’s land has been taken possession for the purpose of road widening from Km 18/3 to Km 18/4. From the above, it is clear that the matter involves several disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided by this Court on the basis of mere affidavits. Whether the petitioner’s land to an extent of 855 sq. yards has been utilized by the respondents or not itself is a disputed question of fact. Even with regard to the 27 sq. yards there is nothing on record to show that the possession has been taken. It is true that no person can be deprived of his property except under the authority of law. However as noticed above, no material is available before this Court to show that the petitioner was deprived of his property either to an extent of 27 sq. yards or 855 sq. yards. Hence the relief as prayed for cannot be granted by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though it is alleged in the writ petition that one K. Srinivasa Rao was withholding the disbursement of compensation to the petitioner, the said Srinivasa Rao is not made a party to this writ petition. In the circumstances, the mala fides sought to be attributed to the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy as available under law before the proper forum for redressal of his grievance. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 06.08.2010 gbs