IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5975 of 2009 Between: Sava Venkata Sudhakar S/o.S.V.Pardhasaradhi Rao 3-76 Habsiguda Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt of A.P rep. by its Secretary Municipal Administration Secretariat Hyderabad 2 Commissioner G.H.M.C Tankbund, Hyderabad 3 Dy Commissioner G.H.M.C Uppal Circle 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation by applying the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the affected property of the petitioner bearing H.No.1-1-91/4 and 91/5 admeasuring 351-16 sq. yards situated at Habsiguda Main Road Hyderabad for widening Tarnaka Nagole Road as illegal arbitrary unreasonable and violative of Art14 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner before taking possession for the property of the petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing H.No.1-1-91/4 and 91/5, situated at Habsiguda Main Road, Hyderabad having purchased the same under a registered sale deed executed in the year 1985. While so, the 3rd respondent issued a Notice dated 23.1.2008 proposing to widen the inner ring roads in the twin cities by 150 feet wide to ease traffic congestion, and in that process, the petitioner’s property in an extent of 351.16 Sq. yards of land is likely to be affected in the proposed road widening, and the notice issued indicates that if the party hands over the extent of land that is going to be affected in the road widening to the respondent-Corporation, certain benefits would be extended to the affected party. Then, the petitioner gave a letter of consent dated 13.2.2008 for removing its compound wall and for surrendering his land for road widening, but his grievance is that the 3rd respondent-Dy. Commissioner, without acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act and without paying him suitable compensation, came to his site on 18.3.1999 and threatened to demolish the existing compound wall for the purpose of widening the road. On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has agreed to surrender his land and later backed out, and now the respondents are going to take steps for acquiring the land as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, and only after acquiring the land and following the due process of law, they will lay the road. In view of the said statement made by the learned Standing Counsel, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: “The respondents are directed not to demolish the house or compound wall of the petitioner, until they acquire the land by following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, and paying him suitable compensation. “ Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 2nd April, 2009 Note: Furnish copy in one week B/o bcj