N. V. RAMANA, J. ( 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 of the building plan, the respondent had insisted that unless and until the petitioners undertook to surrender the land that may come under the purview of road widening, permission would not be granted, and under those circumstances, the petitioners were compelled to give an undertaking to surrender the land. At any rate, he submits that though the petitioners had undertaken to surrender the land, they had not undertaken to surrender the same free of cost to the respondent, and therefore, the respondent cannot contend that the petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation. At any rate, he submits that though the petitioners had undertaken to surrender the land, they had not undertaken to surrender the same free of cost to the respondent, and therefore, the respondent cannot contend that the petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation. If the respondent is not inclined to initiate the land acquisition proceedings and pay compensation, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the benefits flowing from the orders issued by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 483, dated 24-8-1998, whereunder certain relaxations to Building Regulations/ zoning Regulations have been made, should at least be extended to the petitioners. He further submitted that only the land of the petitioners is sought to be acquired, and though others are owning lands along the road side, their lands are not acquired, and this amounts to discriminating the petitioners. ( 7 ) ON the contrary, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent submitted that at the time when the petitioners applied for sanction of the building plan, they had voluntarily given an undertaking to the effect that they would surrender the land falling within the purview of road widening, and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation for the acquired land and there is no need for the respondent to initiate any proceedings under the Land acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition thereof. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that the orders issued by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 483, dated 24-8-1998 are not retrospective in operation, but only prospective, and therefore, the petitioners whose land has been acquired much before coming into existence of the said G. O. , cannot claim any benefits flowing therefrom. The learned standing Counsel submits that the respondent would also acquire the land of others who are owning lands along the road side for the purpose of road widening, and as and when their lands are acquired, they would be paid compensation or granted additional FAR if they surrender the land free of cost. ( 8 ) THE respondent does not dispute the fact that the petitioners are owners of the acquired land. ( 8 ) THE respondent does not dispute the fact that the petitioners are owners of the acquired land. What all the respondent disputes is having regard to the undertaking given by the petitioners at the time sanctioning the plan for construction of building, to the effect that they would surrender part of the land that would be affected by the proposed road widening, they are not entitled to claim any compensation in respect thereof. In order to appreciate whether or not the petitioners by giving such an undertaking had given up their right to claim compensation for the acquired land, it would be necessary to make a reference to the undertaking given by the petitioners. The undertaking given by one of the petitioners to the respondent reads: i, C. Ramakrishna S/o. C. Kondappa aged 42 years, Occupation Business, resident of H. No. 10-2-385, Vijaynagar colony, Hyderabad, do hereby solemnly affirm that I am ready to surrender the affected portion to an extent of 12 -3" depth of land towards my premises bearing No. 5-4-450 situated at Nampally Station Road, to maintain 40 -0" from center of the road, to achieve 80 -0" wide proposed road as and when the Corporation is required for road widening purpose. ( 9 ) A reading of the undertaking given by the petitioners would disclose that the petitioners had merely indicated their readiness to surrender the affected portion of the land as and when the same is required for the purpose of road widening, but they had nowhere undertaken that they would surrender the land free of cost to the respondent or have agreed to waive their right to claim compensation for the portion of the land which would be affected in the proposed road widening. By giving the aforementioned undertaking, the petitioners have merely agreed to surrender the affected portion of the land, and they cannot be said to have agreed to surrender the affected portion of the land to the respondent free of cost nor can they be said to have waived their right to claim compensation for the land acquired by the respondent for the purpose of road widening. It is the case of the petitioners that they had given the undertaking to surrender the affected portion of the land when they were told by the respondent that unless and until they give such an undertaking, the plan submitted by them for construction of the building would not be sanctioned. The nature of undertaking obtained by the respondent from the petitioners at the time of sanctioning the plan, would disclose that the respondent had taken such an undertaking from the petitioners as a measure of precaution to ensure that the process of road widening goes of smoothly without any hindrance and objection from the land and building owners for parting with their land which is required for road widening. ( 10 ) THE authority and power of the State to acquire land of a private individual cannot be disputed, but such authority and power can be exercised by the State only in terms of the constitutional mandate under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which states that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. A learned single Judge of this Court in Bantharam bichappa and others v. District Collector, r. R. District (1 supra), having found fault with the acquisition of land, which was made without paying compensation to the landowners in terms of the Land Acquisition act, 1894, held: every citizen in this country has right to possess property and it is settled law that a citizen cannot be deprived of his property ordinarily, but in the interests of the State the property can be taken away subject to limitations prescribed by law. Therefore, a full fledged Code has been enacted in the form of Land acquisition Act. The State has no power or authority to enter into anybody s property unless and until a notification under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act is promulgated. Here is a case where land was taken, it was put to use and even the notification assuming the jurisdiction to acquire the land has not been issued. The State has no power or authority to enter into anybody s property unless and until a notification under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act is promulgated. Here is a case where land was taken, it was put to use and even the notification assuming the jurisdiction to acquire the land has not been issued. ( 11 ) IN the instant case also, the respondent without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and without paying any compensation, had acquired the land of the petitioners merely on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioners at the time of sanction of plan for construction of the building, to part with the portion of the land to be affected in the road widening as and when the same is required for the purpose of road widening. Inasmuch as the respondent had acquired the land of the petitioners without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition act, 1894 and without paying any compensation to them in respect of the acquired land, the acquisition of the land of the petitioners by the respondent for the purpose of road widening, is illegal and cannot be sustained. ( 12 ) BE that as it may, during the pendency of the writ petitions, the government in G. O. Ms. No. 483, dated 24-8-1998, had issued orders delegating powers for according certain relaxations to building Regulations/zoning Regulations in respect of 18 roads/junctions falling in MCH area, to those land owners who had surrendered land to the respondent for the purpose of road widening free of cost. The purport of the said G. O. is that in the case of landowners and building owners who have surrendered the affected land free of cost for road widening, sanction of additional F. A. R. to them can be considered as per the Master plan/zonal Development Plan. The purport of the said G. O. is that in the case of landowners and building owners who have surrendered the affected land free of cost for road widening, sanction of additional F. A. R. to them can be considered as per the Master plan/zonal Development Plan. It is the case of the petitioners that they are ready and willing to bind by the undertaking given by them, but their grievance is that they should be paid compensation for the acquired land or in the alternative, if the respondent is not inclined to pay them compensation in lieu of the acquired land, the respondent be directed to consider their case for grant of additional F. A. R. in terms of the above G. O. Though the respondent contended that the orders issued by the Government in the G. O. are not applicable to the land acquired prior to the issuance of the G. O. and the G. O. is only prospective in nature, but the clarification given by the Government in memo No. 8085/m1/90-1 M. A. dt. 9-2-1999, makes it clear that the G. O. is not only limited to the 18 roads mentioned therein, but it shall also be made applicable to cases where the land was surrendered free of cost and physical possession of land was already taken over by the MCH for road widening. In the instant case, inasmuch as the land of the petitioners had been acquired admittedly without paying any compensation, and having regard to the fact that acquisition of the land of the petitioners without initiating land acquisition proceedings has been held to be illegal, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed with the following directions: the respondent shall either pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of the acquired land by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or in the alternative consider sanction of additional F. A. R. to the petitioners in terms of the orders issued by the Government in g. O. Ms. No. 483, dated 24-8-1998 and as clarified by them in Memo No. 8085/m 1/90- 1 M. A. , dated 9-2-1999. The aforementioned exercise shall be carried out by the respondent within a period of four months. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.