Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.

By order dated 10.02.2015, we observed that the acquisition of the property from the petitioner/appellant was not in accordance with the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. We thought that damages and compensation for the property taken over by the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is the appropriate relief to be granted and that with the mechanism of arbitration, the same could be resolved and as such, we granted time to the parties to have a consensus with regard to arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The learned Special Government Pleader attached to the Advocate General, appearing for the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, submits on instructions that his client is not willing to go for arbitration. Under the circumstances, we have given up the idea of resolving the issue through the mechanism of arbitration.

This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 09th March, 2011. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing that the valuation of the petitioner’s land vide Annexure 4 is insufficient, illegal and void and consequently, to direct the respondents to pay the compensation @ Rs.40,000/- as fixed by the Sub-Registrar, Marred pally vide Annexure 15 with all the other incidental benefits as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act for 4122.14 square yards of land acquired from the premises No.10-3-165, 165/A situated on S.D. Road and from St. John’s Church High School situated on S.P. Road, Secunderabad affected by the road widening from Hyderabad Public School to Tarnaka. Above prayer was made on the grievance, sum and substance of which is that the above property was taken over by the first respondent without lawful agreement with petitioner as mentioned in Section 146 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 or resorting to lawful land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As a matter of fact forcibly, for widening the road the property is taken over. As such, the appellant had no option but to accept just compensation for damages done as above, as the land cannot be returned now.

The learned Trial Judge, in the context of the aforesaid prayer, passed the impugned order refusing to grant the relief as prayed for. It was also recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the land of the petitioner was taken over by the Corporation on the basis of negotiations. An offer was made by the Corporation to pay compensation @ Rs.7,000/- per square yard. That, in turn, was accepted by the petitioner through their reply. It was also recorded that almost a consent award came to be passed and the compensation was paid. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the observation and recording of the learned Trial Judge that on the basis of negotiations the land was taken is absolutely erroneous. According to us, the land can be acquired by the Municipal Corporation under the provisions of Section 146 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, which are set out hereunder:

“146. Acquisition of immovable property by agreement:-

(1) Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Commissioner may acquire, or whenever it is necessary or expedient for any purpose of this Act that the Commissioner shall acquire any immovable property, such property may be acquired by the Commissioner on behalf of the Corporation by agreement on such terms at such rates or prices not exceeding such maxima as shall be approved by the Standing Committee, either generally for any class of cases or specially in a particular case.

(2) And whenever, under any provision of this Act, the Commissioner is authorised to agree to pay the whole or any portion of the expenses of acquiring any immovable property, he shall do so on such terms and at rates or prices not exceeding such maxima as shall be approved by the Standing Com