( 1 ) IN these two writ petitions, which are filed by the wife and husband against the respondent-Municipal Corporation of hyderabad, common grievance is raised, and as such, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of an extent of 118. 50 and 220 Sq. yds. of land having purchased the same under different registered sale deeds in the year 1991. The petitioners state that having purchased the land, they obtained permission from the respondent-Municipal corporation of Hyderabad, and constructed a building therein. While so, it is the case of the petitioners that on 4-9-1993, the officials of the respondent, all of a sudden came to their building and demolished a portion of the building, facing the main road, stating that the same is required for road widening. The petitioners state that an extent of 36 and 99. 22 Sq. yds. of land and building was affected by the demolition in the road widening.

( 3 ) THE Assistant City Planner, Circle VI filed counter-affidavit and additional-counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent. It is stated that inasmuch as the petitioners while obtaining sanction of building plans had undertaken to voluntarily surrender the affected portion of the land coming within the purview of road widening, they are not entitled to claim any compensation, and no proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the land of the petitioners, need be initiated. Inasmuch as lands of others whose lands are abutting the main road are also being acquired, the petitioners cannot contend that they are being discriminated. In cases where the landowners are refusing to part with their land, proceedings under the Land acquisition Act, 1894 for their acquisition is being initiated. In the additional counter- affidavit, it is stated that Government in g. O. Ms. No. 483, dated 24-8-1998 had delegated powers to the Commissioner, municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to grant relaxation to certain requirements like set backs and additional FSI in cases where land was surrendered for road widening free of cost, and the applicability of the said G. O. to areas other than those mentioned therein, was clarified in Memo No. 8085/m1/90-1 ma, dated 9-2-1999. The petitioners surrendered the land in 1992 and the orders issued by the Government in the G. O. and the clarification given in respect thereto in the Memo being much subsequent to the surrender of the land by the petitioners, the benefit arising from the G. O. and the Memo, cannot be made applicable to the petitioners for they are only prospective in nature.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent.

( 5 ) THE following is the sum and substance of the pleadings and arguments as is reflected from the affidavits and counter-affidavits and the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondent in demolishing the building of the petitioners and acquiring an extent of 36 and 99. 22 sq. yds. of land without issuing any notice and without taking recourse to the land acquisition proceedings under the Land acquisition Act, 1894 and not paying any compensation for the acquired land and demolished part of the building, is illegal and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submission that no land of a private individual can be taken without initiating proceedings under the Land acquisition Act, 1894, cited the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in bantharam Bichappa and others v. District collector, R. R. District. The learned counsel for the petitioners denied the contention of the respondent that the petitioners had given the undertaking to surrender the land voluntarily. When the petitioners applied for sanction