C B ANANTAM Vs. COLLECTOR HYDERABAD DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions relate to the acquisition of land for the purpose of widening the road connecting Bashirbagh-Abids, within the local limits of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Petitioners contend that there was no proper publication of the notification under Section 4(1) or the declaration under Section 6 of the enquiry notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioners therefore submit that the entire proceedings are illegal. They also contend that the proceedings are illegal. They also contend that the proceedings violated the principles of natural justice. Yet another submission is that the proceedings are vitiated by mala fides, in that, there has been collusion between the respective landlords and the Land Acquisition Officers. It is also submitted that acquisition of the respective lands involved in these Writ Petitions is not necessary for the purpose of achieving the public purpose, which has been mentioned in the land acquisition proceedings.

(2.) Writ Petition No.7903/91 is filed by the tenant of shop bearing No.5-9-319, situated at Gunfoundary, in which the petitioner is conducting Hair Cutting Saloon under the name "Bombay Therapan Hair Dressing Saloon" for the last 24 years in which he submits that he has invested huge amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The original owner of the shop was one Mir Imdad Ali Khan, and after his death, one Muzaffer Ali Mhan is collecting the rents from the Petitioner. It is stated that fer the last about six years, the Municipal Corporation and the Urban Development Authority were planning to widen the read from Bashirbagh te Abids junction and that several times they came and took the measurements, but no concrete action was taken by them. It is Stated that notices were issued te the adjacent tenant for acquisition of their shops, but their proceedings were not finalised. Petitioner submits that he came to know that the notification was published on 10-1-1991 in a localy daily 'Citizen' stating that a part of his shop and the adjacent three shops will be acquired for widening the road. Petitioner submits that the notification was vague. He also submits that similar notices ought to have been served on all shop keepers situated on the road. Petitioner sumbits that acquisition of part of his shop building will affect his business and that ought not to have been done, without serving notices under Section 4 on the tenant. It is assumed that there has been no enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioner also made his submissions on the assumption that the respondent had invoked Section 17(1) of the Act by dispensing with the enquiry. It is further contended that the petitioner being a person interested, ought to have been given notices as held by the Supreme Court in Mushi Singh vs. Union of India.

(3.) It is on these grounds that the petitioner seek the issue of a writ of Certiorari to quash the notification dt.3-6-1991 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, in Memo No.D3/4198/90 by the 1st respondent.