ORDER : The petitioners herein claim to be owners and possessors of individual house properties situated at Alampur Town, Jogulamba Gadwal District, which have been partly demolished by respondent authorities. Grievance of the petitioners is that respondent authorities have illegally demolished the structures without following due process of law, the principles of natural justice, the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019 (for short ‘Municipalities Act 2019’), and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (for short ‘Act 2013’). 2. Since common issue is involved in all these writ petitions, with the consent of the both sides, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience, W.P. No.41639 of 2022 is taken as lead case for disposal of all these writ petitions. 4. Brief facts in W.P. No.41639 of 2022 are as under: 5. The petitioner claims to be owner of the property bearing H.No.15-8 (part of Old H.No.15-3) admeasuring 17.7 square yards with built up area of 142.5 square feet situated at Alampur, Jogulamba Gadwal District (for short ‘property’). It is stated that the petitioner acquired the property through her father-in-law, late Shaik Nasser Ahmed. The brother-in-law of the petitioner, Mr. Shaik Maqbool Ahmed S/o. late Shaik Naseer Ahmed) has handed over the possession of the property to the petitioner as she is widow of his brother, late Mr. Shaik Azam Pasha. The predecessors in title of the petitioner were permitted by the Alampur Gram Panchayat to construct houses to reside and later to construct shops to eke out livelihood. The revenue records reflected the said land is Gram Kantam land. The petitioner and her predecessors had been in possession of the property for the past more than fifty (50) years. They had been paying property tax to the erstwhile Gram Panchayat. The property forms part of old H.No.15-3 which was divided into four (4) house numbers i.e., H.Nos.15-7, 15-8, 15-9 and 15-10 and owned by the petitioner and her family members. 6. It is stated that the grand-father of the petitioner’s husband, late Mr. Shaik Ahmed was permitted to use old house bearing H.No.15-3 vide proceedings dated 04.01.1973 issued by the erstwhile Gram Panchayat. The property was originally used by the predecessors of the petitioner for residential purposes. Later it was used as hotel from which the petitioner’s family made living for their survival. Shaik Ahmed was permitted to use old house bearing H.No.15-3 vide proceedings dated 04.01.1973 issued by the erstwhile Gram Panchayat. The property was originally used by the predecessors of the petitioner for residential purposes. Later it was used as hotel from which the petitioner’s family made living for their survival. Prior to illegal demolition of property the same was used as Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) which was rented out by the petitioner to the State Bank of India (SBI). The Alampur Gram Panchayat has granted permission for construction of structures on multiple occasions in the names of the petitioner and her predecessors in interest. 7. It is contended that originally the property was owned by late Mr. Shaik Ahmed and later transferred in the name of Mr. Nazeer Ahmed vide proceedings dated 04.12.1990 issued by Gram Panchayat. After the death of Mr. Nazeer Ahmed, the property was transferred in the name of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 14.03.2014 issued by the Alampur Gram Panchayat. 8. It is stated that having coming to know that respondent No.2 is intending to widen the road abutting the property, the petitioner along with others submitted representation to respondent No.7 in the month of September 2022 requesting to widen the road only to a limited extent to protect the interest of the petitioner and others who are owners and possessors of the Gram Kantham land. Further, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 along with other officials of respondent no.2 visited the property on 23.10.2022 with JCBs’ and declared that they are going to demolish the property along with nearby shops. Respondent authorities proceeded with the demolition of property without issuing prior notice to the petitioner despite representations of the petitioner and others. 9. It is stated that the part of the property has been demolished on 23.10.2022. The petitioner and other similarly placed persons submitted representation dated 28.10.2022 to respondent No.7 pointing out that the property has been demolished by the Municipality to widen the road and no compensation / alternate property has been given to them. The petitioner also requested respondent No.7 to intervene in the matter to protect her interest. It is contended that the action of respondent authorities in demolishing the part of the property of the petitioner is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 10. The petitioner also requested respondent No.7 to intervene in the matter to protect her interest. It is contended that the action of respondent authorities in demolishing the part of the property of the petitioner is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is stated that the Alampur Municipality passed resolution to remove illegal and unauthorized encroachment from Gandhi Chowk to Harita Hotel for the purpose of road widening. On 17.10.2022, 18.10.2022 and 20.12.2022 a Tom Drum Beat was made in the area of proposed road requesting all the encroachers to appear before the Commissioner, Alampur, on 21.10.2022. After negotiations the encroachers requested the Chairman to widen the road to 82 feet only, for which they do not have any objection and voluntarily agreed to remove that extent. The proposal was accepted by the Chairman and the Commissioner. Accordingly, marking was made for only 41 feet on the either side from the middle of the road. On the same day, twelve (12) members/encroachers signed proposals in the presence of Commissioner. 11. It is stated that in view of the same Municipal officials have not issued any notice to the shop owners including the petitioner. It is stated that late Mr. Shaik Ahmed was permitted to construct kachha (compound wall) in the open land admeasuring 10 X 5 square yards, which is a Gram Kantam land. However, over a period of time, the petitioner converted the said house into commercial shop without obtaining permission from the Municipality. 12. It is further stated by respondent No.2 that the property is a Gram Kantam land. That the document dated 04.06.1973 is in Urdu language. The petitioner has intentionally misled the Court by submitting false English translation at Page No.46 of the writ petition that “We are handing over physical possession of land on patta in your favour”. There is no mention of patta or possession in the original document. As per the said document, the then Sarpanch of Alampur gave permission on 06.06.1973 to Mr. Shaik Ahmed only for construction of kachha compound on Gram Kantam land for a limited extent of 10.5 square yards. The Sarpanch does not have authority to transfer the title of village land to private persons. Mr. Nazir Ahmed has illegally occupied the Gram Panchayat land in the guise of reconstruction of house. Shaik Ahmed only for construction of kachha compound on Gram Kantam land for a limited extent of 10.5 square yards. The Sarpanch does not have authority to transfer the title of village land to private persons. Mr. Nazir Ahmed has illegally occupied the Gram Panchayat land in the guise of reconstruction of house. Further, in the guise of reconstruction, approval was issued by the Gram Panchayat on 30.11.1990. The permission was granted to the petitioner for construction of house. However, the petitioner has let it out on commercial purpose. It is further stated that as per the directions of this Court, council meeting was held on 21.11.2022 and following three (3) reliefs were proposed to the petitioner and others: 1. To provide Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) to the petitioner as per G.O. Ms.No.168 dated 07.04.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.330 dated 28.10.2017. 2. The Municipal Council is ready to pay the compensation to the acquired land as per the Land Acquisition Act, by paying the Government market value to the petitioner to her acquired land admeasuring 17.7 square yards. 3. Those who are not having any title in respect of their shops the Municipal council is ready to provide shop on rental basis in the proposed on going newly constructed shopping complex. 4. The Municipal Council Alampur made a resolution to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each from the Municipal General Fund on behalf of the Municipal Council to heal the small traders who lost their encroached shops. Further, request was made to this Court to direct the petitioner to opt for any the above proposals and pass orders on those proposals. 13. Heard Mr. Mohd. Omer Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Municipalities, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 14. As seen from the record, order dated 16.11.2022 was passed by this Court and in compliance of the same, respondent No.2 held meeting on 21.11.2022 and proposed three (3) options to the petitioners as stated above. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are economically poor and instead of availing TDR benefit or compensation under the Act 2013, the petitioners would opt for alternate land. The petitioners also submitted representation to respondent No.7 for allotment of alternate land. 16. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are economically poor and instead of availing TDR benefit or compensation under the Act 2013, the petitioners would opt for alternate land. The petitioners also submitted representation to respondent No.7 for allotment of alternate land. 16. Learned standing counsel for Municipalities submitted that the petitioners cannot request for allotment of alternate land as a matter of right. The petitioners are entitled for TDR benefit or compensation under the provisions of the Act 2013. 17. Be that as it may, in the meeting held on 21.11.2022, it was resolved by the Municipal Council to pay compensation to the petitioners whose properties were acquired for road widening. In the light of the categorical statement made in the counter affidavit of respondent No.2, it is not necessary to delve into the title of the petitioners, allegations and counter allegations. The only issue now involved is whether the petitioners can insist for allotment of alternate land. It is no doubt that the allotment of alternate land cannot be a matter of right. However, the petitioners herein contend that their properties are situated on the highway road having substantial value and most of them have used the properties or rented it out for commercial purpose. 18. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, even if compensation is paid, it would be difficult for the petitioners to acquire similar commercial properties. All the petitioners are mainly dependent on the commercial structures constructed in the properties for their livelihood. 19. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be met if the request of the petitioners is considered for allotment of alternate land in lieu of their properties being acquired by respondent authorities for road widening. 20. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioners for allotment of alternate land/shop in lieu of their properties being acquired for road widening, in accordance with law. If the same is not feasible, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to acquire the properties of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act 2013. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. If the same is not feasible, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to acquire the properties of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act 2013. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petitions stand closed.