THE HON‘BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION No.64 OF 2012
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Corporation not to acquire the land of the petitioner-temple for the purpose of road widening, without issuing notice to it and without following due procedure as laid down under Sections 146 and 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and further not to grant any compensation to any of the encroachers of the temple land without issuing notice to the petitioner-temple.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, may be stated as follows:
The petitioner-Sri Chitragupta Temple is endowed in 1907 and it is now under the supervision of the Endowments Department. Recently, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, has constituted Board of Trustees vide proceedings No.A2/3259/2009, dated 04.11.2010 and the land in an extent of Acs.3.00 belonging to the petitioner-temple is under the control and management of the Board of Trustees. A portion of the temple land was occupied by number of encroachers and the said encroachers have created certain fictitious documents showing as if they are the owners of the said land. The petitioner is taking steps to evict the said encroachers from the temple land.
The grievance of the petitioner-temple is that the respondent Corporation is trying to widen the road, due to which a part of the temple land is getting affected, without issuing any notice to it; that the respondent Corporation is approaching the encroachers and promising them to pay the compensation for the land, which is getting affected in the road widening and that the encroachers, with connivance of the officials of the respondent Corporation, are claiming compensation for the land, which is likely to be affected in the road widening, by creating fictitious documents. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Nagesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without there being any authority, the respondents are trying to acquire the land of the petitioner-temple for the purpose of road widening and hence she prays to issue a direction to the respondents not to acquire the land of the petitioner-temple.
5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC contended that if the land of the petitioner-temple is required for road widening, the respondents will follow due procedure as contemplated under Sections 146 and 147 of the Act.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are trying to acquire the land of the petitioner for the purpose of road widening, without following due process of law. If the petitioner-temple is the owner of the land in question, the respondents have to follow the procedure as contemplated under Sections 146 and 147 of the Act.
7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow due procedure as contemplated under Sections 146 and 147 of the Act, in case the petitioner is the title holder of the land in question. There shall be no order as to costs.