( 1 ) THE question which arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to whether the possession of a land in occupation of a lessee can be acquired by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad without recourse to compulsory acquisition only on the basis of the consent given by the landlady. The petitioner herein is a company. It is a tenant of the premises No. 6-3-569 and 570, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. One Smt. M. Ramanamma is the landlady of the said premises. The petitioner was granted lease in respect of the aformentioned premises for establishing a printing press in respect whereof it obtained licence from the Municipal Corporation of Hydrabad. The Inspector of Factories has also granted licence in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner herein had also been published two dailies eenadu and News Time from the said premises. The building structures, hoards and the watchman room allegedly were constructed by the petitioner on leasehold land at its own cost. With a purpose of widening the road the 1st respondent threatened to take possession of the said premises purported to be on the basis of an alleged consent of the landlady without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner which was marked as Writ Petition No. 6294 of 1983 and by the judgment and order dated 14-9-1987 K. Ramaswamy, J. (as His Lordship then was) directed the respondent not to take possession except upon invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The 1st respondent thereafter gave a notice on 9-9-1995 to the petitioner to surrender the land covered under the said premises in public interest free of cost whereupon the aforementioned direction of this Court was brought to his notice in terms of a letter dated 20-9-1995. Despite the same, on 9-1-1996 the 2nd respondent replied that its lessor Smt. M. Ramanamma gave consent and thereby the petitioner was called upon to vacate 144. 16 sq. yards of land adjoining the road after removing the compound wall and structures belonging to the petitioner. In the said letter they referred to the judgment passed by a division bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 795 of 1993 disposed of on 5-8-1993 by way of justification of their action. According to the petitioner, however, the said judgment is not binding upon it having regard to the decision of K. Ramaswamy, J. in its case. The petitioner also asked for a copy of the purported consent letter issued by its landlady which was denied to it by the respondent in terms of his letter dated 30-1-1996. The petitioner thereafter issued another letter on 22-2-1996. In this writ petition the petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs :"the petitioner prays the Honourable Court to be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Notice No. 94/tps/acp-V/mch/w6/96 dated 25-3-1996 of the 2nd respondent depriving the possession of site admeasuring 144. 16 sq. yards in premises No. 6-3-569 and 570, Somajiguda, Hyderabad including compound wall, security rooms and sign boards as null and void and to restrain the respondents from proceeding further except in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act as already held in W. P. No. 6294/1983 dated 14-9-1987 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice. It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Court maybe pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of notice issued by the respondents in Proc. No. 94/tps/acp-V/mch. W6/96, dated 25-3-1996 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders in the interests of justice. "

( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the matter as referred to herein is not denied and disputed.

( 3 ) HAVING regard to the importance of the question the matter was referred to a larger bench.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter ali