Judgment : This writ petition is instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondent – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) in pressurizing the petitioner to hand over her immoveable property bearing Municipal No. 8-1-168, admeasuring 75 sq yards adjacent to TB Hospital, Erragadda, Hyderabad, as illegal and consequently to refrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the said property without following the due process of law. The petitioner claims that she is the owner of property bearing Municipal No. 8-1-168 admeasuring 75 sq yards adjacent to Chest Hospital, Erragadda, Hyderabad. It is claimed by her that the property was purchased by her husband some time during 1970 and later on a small house with a mulgi in the ground floor was got constructed and she has succeeded to the property after the death of her husband. It is stated that on 12.9.2012, the staff members of the respondent – Municipal Corporation started demolishing several houses in the vicinity of the property of the writ petitioner and on 15.9.2012, the petitioner was told by the staff of the respondent -Municipal Corporation that in case she fails to hand over possession of the property immediately, the corporation would demolish the same in toto and ever since then, the staff of the corporation have been periodically pressurizing the petitioner to hand over the property by way of private negotiations. The petitioner has asserted in paragraph (8) of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that she has never entered into negotiations with the corporation and on 14.2.2013 and 15.2.2013 when some of the staff members of the respondent corporation threatened the petitioner to hand over the property in question immediately failing which they would take coercive action, the petitioner has addressed the 2nd respondent – Assistant City Planner on 19.2.2013 making it clear that she does not want to hand over the property to them on her own. But, however, it is stated that the petitioner has received a telephone call from the office of the 2nd respondent that a cheque towards compensation has been prepared and kept ready and directed the petitioner to go over to the office of the 2nd respondent to collect the said amount without disclosing the amount for which the cheque was drawn. But, however, it is stated that the petitioner has received a telephone call from the office of the 2nd respondent that a cheque towards compensation has been prepared and kept ready and directed the petitioner to go over to the office of the 2nd respondent to collect the said amount without disclosing the amount for which the cheque was drawn. The petitioner has pointed out in paragraph (11) of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that several persons, whose properties were effected by the road widening project undertaken by the corporation, have all received handsome compensation from the respondents, but strangely in her case the respondents are not declaring as to how much compensation will be paid to her. In those set of circumstances, the present writ petition is filed. Heard Sri Mohd Zia-ul-Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for the GHMC. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri Mohd. Zia-ul-Haque would contend that the corporation or its officials have no business to interfere with the right of the petitioner to enjoy her immoveable property without recourse to law. The respondents have only a right to acquire the immoveable property of the petitioner, that too for achieving a public purpose, but not otherwise. Without thus acquiring the property in question, the petitioner cannot be threatened or coerced into submission by the respondents. Further, it is contended that if the land in question is acquired, the benefit of additional compensation, particularly in accordance with Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would become available to the petitioner and therefore the respondents cannot deny any such benefits to the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that if the petitioner is not satisfied with regard to the quantum of compensation now offered and paid by the corporation, she will have to indulge in an expensive litigation to claim additional amounts towards compensation. The petitioner in such a case would not be entitled to claim all such benefits which are made available to a claimant under the Land Acquisition Act. At best, the petitioner can only claim from the civil court, interest on the additional compensation amount and hence the petitioner would be denied a fair and reasonable opportunity of receiving adequate compensation for the immoveable property acquired by the respondents. At best, the petitioner can only claim from the civil court, interest on the additional compensation amount and hence the petitioner would be denied a fair and reasonable opportunity of receiving adequate compensation for the immoveable property acquired by the respondents. Along with this writ petition, three documents were exhibited. The 1st is the representation said to have been submitted by the petitioner to the Assistant City Planner, Circle No. 10, marking a copy thereof to the Commissioner, GHMC on 19.2.2013. The 2nd is a copy of the sale deed dated 22.9.1970 evidencing the purchase of an open site, of 45 ft x 15 ft, by her husband Sri Mohd. Hussain, S/o Sri Shaik Ahmed. The 3rd is a judgment rendered by me in WP No. 2270 of 2013 declaring that unless a party gives consent, the GHMC cannot dispossess the party from out of immoveable property except by way of acquiring the said property. Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC has placed before me, for my perusal the contents of a file maintained by the corporation in this regard. The GHMC has taken up the project of widening the existing road from Panjagutta to Erragadda locality of the city in view of the ongoing Hyderabad Metro Rail Project. For purposes of establishing the Metro Rail Line, certain portions of the existing roads have been dedicated for construction of massive concrete pillars for holding the rail line above the ground level. With the rapid expansion of the Metropolitan cities, the available infrastructural facilities, in particular, the surface transport infrastructure, have come under tremendous stress. With the increased economic power, of the middle class in particular, the motor vehicular density on roads has just grown at a greater proportion than could be visualized by the civic bodies and their administrators. Before a total chaotic situation would be prevailing on day to day basis on the surface transport modes, alternative rapid transportation facilities were thought of. One such approved alternative was to put in place dedicated Metro Rail line so that the commuting public can be transported by a public railway carrier most efficiently and at an affordable cost. Such rapid urban transportation technologies were found, by experience world over, as the most effective diffusing methods of density of the other surface transport infrastructure. One such approved alternative was to put in place dedicated Metro Rail line so that the commuting public can be transported by a public railway carrier most efficiently and at an affordable cost. Such rapid urban transportation technologies were found, by experience world over, as the most effective diffusing methods of density of the other surface transport infrastructure. But, however, certain portions of the existing surface roads will have to be dedicated for construction of massive sized reinforced cement concrete pillars for holding the rail lines. For undertaking construction of these concrete pillars little more space additionally is also consumed and such portions of the roads would get blocked from becoming available to all road users to facilitate hassle free execution of the civil construction works relating thereto. Consequently, the existing road networks are required to be widened. Hence, the GHMC has initiated the necessary proposals for acquiring the land. But, however, the revenue administration of the State Government has tendered an opinion that the land falling in Town Survey No. 1, Block-D, Ward No. 7, Yousufguda village, Khairatabad Mandal is treated as belonging to the government. In view of this opinion of the revenue establishment of the State, the corporation was obviously caught in a dilemma. The various properties which have sprung up in recent times, there around, would only cause enormous delay in taking their possession on the premise that the land in question belongs to the government. The occupiers and possessors would invariably resort to seemingly interminable litigation and consequently the Metro Rail project would get delayed if not completely derailed. In those circumstances, the GHMC in consultation with the State Government have constituted a Four Member Committee comprising of the Commissioner, GHMC, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, the Executive Engineer of the concerned area and the General Manager (Land Management), Hyderabad Metro Rail Project, Hyderabad. This Committee had held a meeting on 16.4.2012 with various occupants of the properties falling in line and thus getting impacted by the road widening project. The brief of this Committee was to negotiate and determine the ex gratia that should be paid to the property owners. The Sub-Registrar of the concerned area has certified the market value as Rs.33,000/-per sq yard for residential and Rs.60,000/- per sq yard for some of the leading properties adjoining the important areas enroute. The brief of this Committee was to negotiate and determine the ex gratia that should be paid to the property owners. The Sub-Registrar of the concerned area has certified the market value as Rs.33,000/-per sq yard for residential and Rs.60,000/- per sq yard for some of the leading properties adjoining the important areas enroute. During the meeting of the Negotiations Committee, the property owners have contended that the prevailing market value of their properties is certainly more than Rs.60,000/- per sq yard and hence, unless a reasonable compensation amount is paid, they will not agree to handover the properties. After several rounds of negotiations, the Negotiation Committee has ultimately decided to pay the ex gratia of the land at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per sq yard. The structural value of each effected building is asked to be determined by the Executive Engineer. Most significantly, the file has disclosed that the following three property owners have submitted, during negotiations, in support of their ownership the relevant legal heir certificate and no objection certificate relating to their respective properties. The tabulated statement contained in the file reads as under: “TABLE” It is, therefore, clear that Smt. Shamshu Begum, W/o Mohd. Hussain has participated in the negotiations held by the Negotiation Committee. It was also determined that the property to the extent of 24.88 sq yards only of the petitioner is getting impacted. Since her husband has died, she submitted the Legal Heirs Certificate, the electricity bill, pan card issued by the Income tax department and the death certificate of her husband. In support of the ownership of the property, she has also produced copy of the registered sale deed No. 2765/1970 dated 22.9.1970. The Negotiations Committee applied the value of the land at the rate of RS.45,000/-and consequently arrived the land value for 24.88 sq yards as Rs.11,19,600/-. Out of this amount, as is required, Income tax was sought to be deducted in a sum of Rs.1,15,319/- and the net land value payable to the petitioner has been worked out as Rs.10,04,281/-. The Negotiations Committee applied the value of the land at the rate of RS.45,000/-and consequently arrived the land value for 24.88 sq yards as Rs.11,19,600/-. Out of this amount, as is required, Income tax was sought to be deducted in a sum of Rs.1,15,319/- and the net land value payable to the petitioner has been worked out as Rs.10,04,281/-. In this context, it is worth noticing the averment of the petitioner in paragraph (11) of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition wherein it is stated that she has come to know that some of the property owners in the vicinity have received handsome compensation from the corporation, but whereas she has not been accorded any such similar treatment. From the statement contained in the file, I could make out that Smt. Shusheela Bai, W/o Late Sathi Reddy, owner of property bearing No. 8-3-168/9, Erragadda, whose property is effected to the extent of 34.22 sq yards is accordingly paid a net value of Rs. 13,81,290/-. Similarly, Sri Abdul Rasheed Khan, owner of the property bearing No. 8-3-168/1, Erragadda, whose property is effected to the extent of 69.44 sq yards is offered a net value of Rs. 28,02,946/- by the Municipal Corporation. Both the aforesaid individuals were also paid compensation at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per sq yard, which is the same rate that has been sought to be paid to the petitioner also. In fact the findings of the Negotiation Committee have been approved by the Corporation and accordingly the compensation amount have been paid to the others. The file also discloses a cheque bearing No. 009853 drawon on State Bank of Hyderabad, Municipal Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad on 12.2.2013 drawn in a sum of Rs.10,04,281/- payable to the petitioner is also available. The cheque is drawn in the name of Smt. Shamshu Begum, W/o Mohd. Hussain and it is to the following effect: “IMAGE” The file also contains a representation addressed by the petitioner on 19.11.2012 to the Commissioner of the Corporation. It was signed by Smt. Shamshu Begum, W/o Mohd. Hussain and her Mobile No. (9346892239) was also noted therein. The mobile phone number of Ms. Fathima Begum (9908480823) is also mentioned therein. Ms. Fathima Begum is stated to be the only daughter of Late Mohd. Hussain, the husband of the writ petitioner herein. It was signed by Smt. Shamshu Begum, W/o Mohd. Hussain and her Mobile No. (9346892239) was also noted therein. The mobile phone number of Ms. Fathima Begum (9908480823) is also mentioned therein. Ms. Fathima Begum is stated to be the only daughter of Late Mohd. Hussain, the husband of the writ petitioner herein. The most relevant para of this representation dated 19.11.2012 reads as under: “… However, I am ready to handover the entire affected portion/plot if necessary. But I may be paid the Ex-gratia against the effected plot to the total extent i.e., 24.88 sq yards as per the present market value as per the due procedure. In view of the above, I humbly request your goodself to kindly consider my request for payment of ex gratia to the entire plot as per the rules, for which I am very much thankful to you Sir.” And the file also contains the copy of the pan card bearing No. BZQPS9328R issued to the petitioner by the Income tax department. It is rather unfortunate that the petitioner has not disclosed any of these facts in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. The affidavit leaves an unmistakeable impression that she has never participated in the negotiations with the Negotiation Committee and that on the other hand a positive assertion is made in paragraph (8) as under: “8. ……….. It is submitted that the Corporation has never entered into negotiations with me or vise-versa.” It is clear, therefore, that the petitioner has approached this court without disclosing the true and correct facts. Section 146 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act is forming part of Chapter V of the Act. It dealt with the procedure of acquisition of immoveable property by way of an agreement by the HMC. Section 146, in so many terms empowered the Commissioner to acquire any immoveable property 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. Therefore, in the instant case, the Commissioner of the GHMC has acted strictly in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Act. Therefore, in the instant case, the Commissioner of the GHMC has acted strictly in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Act. The petitioner along with the owners of her neighbouring properties viz., Smt.Shusheela Bai and Sri Abdul Rasheed Khan has participated in the negotiations undertaken by the Negotiation Committee. They have agreed in principle for transferring their right as an immoveable property by receiving the compensation at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per sq yard. Out of 75 sq yards of the property said to have been owned by the petitioner only 24.88 sq yards are sought to be acquired by the corporation. Therefore, the corporation is bound to pay the compensation at the agreed rate of Rs.45,000/-per sq yard to that extent. The corporation cannot be either asked nor can this court direct to pay for compensation for a larger extent than is being effected by the road widening project. The expression `consent’ has been defined in Blacks Law Dictionary VII Edition as meaning agreement, approval, or permission as to some act or performance, especially given voluntarily by a competent person. The Living Webster Encyclopedia Dictionary defined the verb `consent’ as under: “To agree, to accord, to yield, as to preservation, to comply, to acquiesce or accede”. From the above definition, any act or approval or permission of a person would convey and imply one’s consent. By the very participation of the writ petitioner in the negotiations undertaken by the Committee constituted for the said purpose, the petitioner has unmistakably implied and conveyed her free consent for acquiring a right over a portion of her property for the road widening project undertaken by the GHMC. In such circumstances, it will be hard to describe the action of the respondents as either coercive or amounting to undue influence brought to bear upon the writ petitioner. By her conduct and representations all through the petitioner has unmistakenly conveyed to the GHMC her free consent along with her daughter who is also a legal heir of her deceased husband. I therefore have no hesitation whatsoever to reject the contentions canvassed by Sri Mohd. Zia-ul-Haque that the petitioner has been coerced and threatened to part with the immoveable property. I also have no hesitation to reject the further plea that the respondent corporation has unilaterally attempted to pay some undisclosed amount representing the compensation payable to the petitioner. I therefore have no hesitation whatsoever to reject the contentions canvassed by Sri Mohd. Zia-ul-Haque that the petitioner has been coerced and threatened to part with the immoveable property. I also have no hesitation to reject the further plea that the respondent corporation has unilaterally attempted to pay some undisclosed amount representing the compensation payable to the petitioner. From the statement contained in the file which has translated itself in preparation and drawing of a cheque as noted supra, it is more than clear that the petitioner has also been attempted to be paid the compensation at the same “handsome rate” offered to her neighbouring property owners. Therefore, there is no merit in the plea canvassed by the petitioner otherwise. When once a party gives her consent to the corporation for acquiring the rights over an immoveable property or portion thereof, the question of falling back upon the procedure contemplated by Section 147 of the Act would not arise. Only when a consent is not given, by a party for acquiring by agreement an immoveable property belonging to her in favour of the corporation, the necessity for invoking the compulsory acquisition of land would arise, but not otherwise. In the instant case, the legal heir certificate and the pan card were obviously made available by the petitioner to the corporation. Otherwise, the details in this regard would not have been available with the corporation. It is therefore a case where the petitioner having given her consent has started entertaining apprehensions as to whether she would also get paid compensation at the same rate as her neighbours have been paid by the corporation. Her apprehensions are ill founded. Therefore, I do not see any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. But, however, without costs.