1. The petitioners are the owners of the premises abutting the road from Ameerpet to Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar in Hyderabad. It is stand that when the properties were purchased by them, a strip of 30 feet abutting the then existing road was left for the purpose of widening. It is also stated that in the year 1977, when permission to construct the building was accorded, they had to leave 20 feet further, and that in all, a strip of 55 feet width is left on their side. The Assistant City planner, the 5th respondent, issued a notice, dated 31.3.2006, informing the petitioners that further extents are needed from their properties for the purpose of widening the road. WP No.21954 of 2006 was filed by the 1st petitioner, challenging the said notice. The writ petition was disposed of on 26.10.2006, leaving it open to the petitioner therein to ventilate his grievance by submitting the representation.

2. Thereafter, the petitioners received notices dated 10.1.2008, under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) issued by the 1st respondent. Reeling under the impression that such notices are not preceded by notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, they filed this writ petition challenging the notices. After the writ petition was filed, the petitioners came to know that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 6.1.2008 and that declaration under Section 6 was also published. They got amended the prayer in the writ petition by filing WPMP No.42213 of 2011, to bring the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act, in the fold of the writ petition.

3. The petitioners contend that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act is without jurisdiction, since it was issued by the District Collector, and not by the Government. It is pleaded that the Government in the Revenue Department issued G.O. Ms.No.1131, dated 17.7.1986, in exercise of power under Section 3-A of the Act, delegating its powers under Sections 4, 5-A, 6 and 17 of the Act to the concerned District Collectors for acquisition of the land for the benefit of the Municipalities in the State and to Urban Development Authorities at Warangal and Hyderabad, and that such powers are not delegated in the context of acquisition of the lands for the benefit of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. They further plead that the respondents acted in a discriminatory manner in choosing to acquire the land only on one side of the road, while leaving the properties on the other side, untouched. Other grounds are also urged.

4. The 1st respondent, i.e. the Land Acquisition Officer filed a counter-affidavit. He states that the acquisition became necessary for widening of the road, in view of heavy traffic. He had furnished the particulars of the publication of draft notification and draft declaration. The allegation as to the discrimination in acquisition is denied. He further pleads that the proceedings do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error.

5. Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the District Collector, the 6th respondent herein is not at all competent to issue notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act and the delegation to him under G.O.Ms.No.1131 dated 17.7.1986, was restricted to the acquisition for the benefit of Municipalities and Urban Development Authorities. He submits that it was only in the year 2010, that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 24.2.2010, delegating its power to the Collectors to take steps for acquisition of land for the benefit of Municipal Corporations also. On merits, learned Counsel submits that in case the Corporation wanted to widen the road, it ought to have done so, equally, on both sides, whereas in the instant case acquisition is restored to only on one side. He contends that the petitioners have virtually left a set back of 55 feet for the purpose of widening of the road, and still further extent