B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition seeks a Mandamus declaring the letter dated 20-4-1995 issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to surrender land for road widening free of cost in lieu of grant of permission for construction as unlawful and illegal.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Company dealing in Petroleum products. A branch of the petitioner was set-up at Premises No. 8-4-300/1 on National Highway No. 9 leading to Bombay at Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. On two earlier occasions, whenever road was widened, under two spells, the petitioner was paid compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On third occasion also, a portion of the land on the front abutting the National Highway mentioned above was earmarked for road widening. The right of the local authority, in the instant case the respondent, to make such a demand if it is really needed for widening of the road, cannot be disputed. But, the respondent cannot escape the liability to pay the compensation so as to discharge the obligation of a constitutional guarantee embodied under Article 300-A of the constitution of India. It is a diifferent thing if the party enters into some sort of agreement where he gets some benefit or exemption from the provisions of the building Regulations or Zoning Regulations. In the instant case, even though the respondent-Corporation pleads that the above land earmarked for road widening was given away by the petitioner under a mutual agreement, records do not show any such agreement. In fact, the record produced reads "that the party should handover the affected portion of land under road widening. . . . . ". This cannot be termed as a mutual agreement. It is some sort of mandate that the party should handover the said portion earmarked for road widening. If the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad obligates a person to handover a portion of the land for such purpose as mentioned above or for any other purpose as a pre-condition for grant of permission for construction, it is entirely a different thing. Then of course, the matter may have to be gone into on the touch stone of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-Ill of the constitution of India. But, that is a question apart in this writ proceedings, as there is no such statutory provision. In fact, the statutory provision is contained under Chapter-V of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), which comprises four Sections, viz. , 145,146,147 and 148. Section 145 empowers the Corporation to acquire and hold moveable and immovable property or any interest therein. Section 146 of the Act empowers the Corporation to acquire any immovable property by agreement on such terms at such rates or prices or at rates or prices not exceeding such maximum as shall be approved by the Standing Committee. The very term agreement connotes consensus ad idem and that is lacking in the instant case. From the records, I could not find any such agreement inter se the petitioner and respondent, which can be traceable to Section 146 of the Act. Even if it is an agreement under Sec. 146 of the Act, the price should be agreed and the said agreed price should be paid. But, in the instant case, the respondent is pleading that it is entitled to take the portion earmarked for road widening free of cost for which there is no statutory provision. It is pertinent to mention that whenever a property is taken over by the Municipal Corporation it shall be only under chapter-V and not otherwise. Since there is no agreement under Section 146 of the Act or acquisition by invoking the provision under Section 147 of the Act the action of the respondent-Corporation in refusing to pay the compensation for the above land earmarked for road widening and on the other hand calling upon the petitioner by the impugned letter dated 20-4-1994 (sic. 1995) to handover the portion earmarked for road widening without payment of compensation is clear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document