THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.185 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing D. No.6- 3-788/32/3 & 4 of Durganagar Colony, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. He received a notice from the respondent intimating that they proposed to widen the road from Panjagutta Junction to Maitrivanam Junctionfor a width of 150 feet; and, in the said process his property would be affected for a depth of 28 feet to 30 feet. The petitioner submits that he participated in the enquiry and an award was passed on 04.11.2008, granting compensation for the land acquired and the super structures affected in the road widening. The land was demarcated and the existing structures and shutters were demolished. The petitioner would contend that he had constructed structures and shutters, thereafter, and had plastered the super structures beyond the area earmarked for road widening. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated that the affected portion was earlier demolished by the respondent-Corporation; after demolition the petitioner had again extended his wall to a depth of three feet into the affected portion of the road, had constructed, placed shutters and had plastered the same; the officials of the Corporation had directed the petitioner to remove the encroached structures on the three feet road portion leaving the affected portion open for the purpose of laying of the road; and apprehending demolition the petitioner had invoked this Court’s jurisdiction. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner denying that he had reconstructed the super structures on the three feet portion of the land acquired from him. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine these disputed questions of fact since it is not in dispute that the respondent-Corporation has not put the petitioner on notice calling upon him to remove/dismantle the super structure on the ground that it had been constructed on the land acquired by the respondent from the petitioner herein. Needless to state that, in case the officials of the respondent are satisfied that the petitioner had put up construction on the land acquired by the respondent, it is open to them to put the petitioner on notice, give him an opportunity of being heard and, thereafter, take action in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: 15.03.2010 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J RRB/MRKR