ORDER:- Heard Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Sri Abdul Nazeeb Khan, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P. State Wakf Board. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that a notified Wakf Institution namely 'Tavela Safar Khan' situated at Mozam Jahi Market has certain shop rooms bearing NosA1-708 to 711 and that the 1st respondent - Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has proposed to widen the existing road from Puthlibowli to Mozam Jahi Market and in that process, the aforementioned shop rooms are sought to be demolished. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is insisting upon the consent of the parties for this compulsory acquisition, without offering them any compensation much less a reasonable amount, and is going ahead with the demolition of the structures. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out that if the consent is not issued by any party to voluntarily part with possession of the property in question, the respondent Municipal Corporation cannot take away such a property without resort being made to the acquisition of such property as per the provisions contained in Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act or the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act. The apprehension of the petitioner is that since the procedure contemplated in Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act as well as the Land Acquisition Act provides for determination of the market value to be paid as compensation and since the market value of prime property situate in commercial localities of the city is too high, the Corporation is resorting to short-circuiting the procedure prescribed. 4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation would assert that, at the first instance, the Corporation would solicit consent of the parties concerned and, in return, certain concessions in the form of allowing additional F.S.I. for the constructions to be made by such parties are offered. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the AP. State Wakf Board, Sri Abdul Nazeeb Khan, points out that since the property in question in this case is a registered Wakf property, it is the State Wakf Board which is entitled to receive the compensation amount and no other person other than the AP. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the AP. State Wakf Board, Sri Abdul Nazeeb Khan, points out that since the property in question in this case is a registered Wakf property, it is the State Wakf Board which is entitled to receive the compensation amount and no other person other than the AP. State Wakf Board is entitled to be paid any such compensation irrespective of his position as a Mutawalli or as a tenant or Managing Committee of such Wakf property. He, therefore, suggests that the Municipal Corporation or the Collector, under the Land Acquisition Act, shall invariably put the AP. State Wakf Board on notice and provide an opportunity for the State Wakf Board not only to participate in any enquiry contemplated in that regard, but also enable it to establish and receive, the true and correct market value of the property, which is proposed to be acquired. 6. It is hardly debatable, at this stage, that a citizen can be deprived of his right to hold property without being compensated there for. If a party does not give his consent and he is not willing to receive the additional benefits, which the Corporation offers for such voluntuy donation of immovable properties for road widening purposes, the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has to necessarily take recourse to the procedure prescribed for acquisition of such property, as contemplated under Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, or in the alternative, take recourse to Sectiot1s 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also relevant to point out that it is the A.P. State Wakf Board, which is liable to be paid compensation, and not any other person who may be in actual possession of such property. Therefore, the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation would put the A.P. State Wakf Board on notice and then proceed further in the matter by providing an opportunity to participate in the enquiry that follows later on.