THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.13870 of 2009 DATED: 10.08.2009 Between: G.Gangamma .. Petitioner. And Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondents 3 and 4 in not considering the representation dated 05.06.2009 submitted by her, for demolition of the entire structure of her building bearing No.6-3-788/23 and 6-3-788/23/1 to 3 comprising of ground and first floor situated at Ameerpet, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. The petitioner claims that she is the owner of the house bearing Municipal No.6-3-788/23 and 6-3-788/23/1 to 3 comprising of ground and first floor situated at Ameerpet, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, having acquired the absolute rights of the said property by virtue of Will dated 03.02.1986, and that her husband, during his lifetime, leased out a part of the ground floor of the said house to one Syed Hyder Hussain. While so, for the purpose of widening the road of Panjagutta to Ameerpet situated at Khairatabad village and Mandal, Hyderabad District, part of the subject property was sought to be acquired by the respondents authorities, for which land acquisition proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that she gave consent for the alleged acquisition of her property against the payment of award and, thereupon, a notice dated 31.01.2009 has been given to her to vacate and deliver the possession of the subject property with structures attached to it. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the land acquisition proceedings as stated above, her building was proposed to be demolished to an extent of 90%, due to which the remaining portion of her building would remain unsafe, and as such, she gave a representation on 05.06.2009 to the respondent authorities to demolish the entire structure of her building and she also gave indemnity of no claim for demolishing the part of the structure, which is not under acquisition, but the respondent authorities have not considered her representation. Hence, this writ petition. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4, on instructions, submits that in the existing portion of the subject property, which the petitioner is seeking demolition by the respondents, a tenant of the petitioner is staying and, therefore, it is not possible for them to demolish the same. Since the respondents Corporation is unable to demolish the existing portion of the subject property, as a tenant is stated to be staying therein, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has to take steps to evict the said tenant, otherwise, she has to get a declaration from the respondents Corporation that the existing structure of her building is unsafe and it is to be demolished. In these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to submit an appropriate application before the respondents Corporation seeking declaration of the existing portion of the subject property as unsafe and, on filing such an application, the respondents Corporation is directed to consider the same as per law as expeditiously as possible. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 10.08.2009 v v