IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 804 of 2009 Between: T.Ramulu S/o.Late Mallaiah R/o.13-6-159/1,Uppara Basti Tallagadda Karwan, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, 6th floor, Municipal office, Tank Bund, Hyderabad 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad at Nampally, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in asking to hand over the possession of the shop bearing Municipal No.9-1-44/4 Lange House, Hyderabad and attempt to demolish shop without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14,19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish and dispossess the petitioner without following the due process of law Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.L.SURENDRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} O R D E R:- The petitioner states that he is a tenant in the Shop bearing No.9-1-44/4, Langer Houz, Hyderabad, owned by one Anwar Khan, and it is his grievance that the respondents, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, are interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the shop and trying to demolish the same. Assailing the said action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is a tenant in the shop in question owned by one Anwar Khan, and that there are certain disputes between him and the owner of the shop, and that he had filed suit in O.S. No.1448 of 2007, and the learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, initially granted an ex parte order of Status Quo, and subsequently, was the same absolute on 28.1.2007. He further submitted that when the respondent tried to interfere with his possession, he filed writ petition in W.P. No. 5567 and 2005, and this Court by order dated 17.3.2005, while directing the Registry to list the said writ petition on 22.3.2005 in the Motion List, further directed the respondents therein not to demolish the shop in question without following due process of law. However, despite the said orders, as the respondents are interfering with his possession and trying to demolish the same, he filed the present writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation submitted that the 1st respondent-Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, in lieu of acquisition of the land in question, has passed an Award, dated 16.1.2009, in Form No.9, and also issued a Notice dated 16.1.2009 in Form No.10, to the owner of the shop indicating that the shop in question has been acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act-1 of 1894 for widening the road from Langer Houz to Tippukhan Bridge, Hyderabad District as per the Notification in the Hyderabad District GazetteNos.132 & 136, dated 21.11.2007 and 22.11.2007 and that he should deliver possession of the same with structures attached to it on or before 22.1.2009, and that they are going to take possession of the said property. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record Though there appear to be some disputes between the petitioner and his landlord, the fact remains, the Land Acquisition Officer, for the purpose of widening the road from Langer Houz to Tippukhan Bridge, sought to acquire the land in question, and he having passed an award, directing payment of compensation for the acquired land, also issued notice in the forms prescribed for taking over possession of the land in question along with the structures, in which the shop of the petitioner is said to be situated, of which he claims to be a tenant. Since the respondents sought to take possession of the land in question after paying compensation to the owner and after issuing notices, no interference is called for with the action of the respondents in taking steps to demolish the shop and taking the land for the purpose of widening the road. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 23rd January, 2009 bcj