ORDER: SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J. The present writ petition has been filed to issue appropriate writ, order, or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in acting upon the petitioner’s representations and releasing the compensation amount to the petitioner and also restraining the 4th respondent from making any further constructions on the property, as illegal, contrary to law and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and in violation of Sections 636 and 452 and Chapter-XII of GHMC Act and consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to remove the illegal constructions made upon the petitioner’s property and pass orders as it deem it proper and necessary. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the 1st writ petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of 1500 square yards in Sy.No.493 situated at Mettuguda Main Road, Secunderabad and out of the said land, an extent of 1014 square yards was sold to one V.Y.Bhaskar Rao under the registered sale deed and to an extent of 486 square yards is held by the writ petitioner. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) has undertook road widening from Sangeeth Junction to Mettuguda, Secunderabad and land to an extent of 230 square yards alleged to have been acquired by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein for road widening and have not paid the compensation till date. 3. It is also averred that the respondent No.4 being Ex-Corporator has encroached a part of the said land and raised constructions and consequent upon the death of respondent No.4, his Legal Representatives - Respondent Nos.5 to 8 were brought on record. Further, it is contended that the writ petitioner has instituted the suits against the respondent No.4 before the competent Court of law and the same were pending adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court and the instant writ petition is filed for consideration of her representation seeking payment of compensation for the land to an extent of 230 square yards, which alleged to have been acquired by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein for road widening. 4. 4. Further, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed a detailed counter- affidavit contending that the house of the writ petitioner bearing No.12-8-423/10 was not included in the list of properties, which was acquired for road widening from Sangeeth to Mettuguda junction, Secunderabad and the house bearing Nos.12-8-422/4/1 and 12-8-423/10 was owned by Mr. Advaiah and the H.No.12-8-424/1 was owned by Mr. Y.V.Bhaskar Rao, which were included along with other affected properties and thereafter, a letter was addressed by the Assistant City Planner, GHMC (Old Circiel-7) to the Special Deputy Collector to initiate land acquisition proceedings and in the list of properties, the H.No.12-8-422/4/1 is not included and accordingly, draft notice under Section 4(1) notification was issued by the then District Collector on 21.11.2007 for including list of 22 effected properties for the road widening and the list of properties i.e., house bearing No.12-8-423/10 was shown to be owned and possessed by Advaiah to an extent of 96.52 square meters or 115.47 square yards and house bearing No.12-8-424/1 was shown to be owned and possessed by Y.V.Bhaskar to an extent of 771.37 square meters or 922.79 square yards. It was stated that the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act was conducted and consequent upon which the amount of Rs.28,01,760/- vide cheque No.L-031331 dated 13.02.2008 was paid to the 4th respondent towards compensation, where the House Nos.12-8-422/4/1 and 12-8-423/10 are mentioned and there is also correction i.e., rounding off H.No.12-8-423/1, which in fact is notified in the notification. It was contended that the writ petitioner was not clear in respect of the house numbers and extent of land acquired by the GHMC and as there are disputed questions of facts and title, the writ petitioner, instead of working out her remedies before the competent Civil Court, has filed the instant writ petition and is not maintainable. 5. Insofar as the construction made by the 4th respondent, it was stated that there was no construction activity being undertaken by the 4 th respondent, and therefore, the question of issuing notices under the Act does not arise. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, writ petitioner expired and her LRs were brought on record i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 8. 7. Heard Smt. K.Pallavi learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, writ petitioner expired and her LRs were brought on record i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 8. 7. Heard Smt. K.Pallavi learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Government Pleader for GHMC for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and none appeared for respondent Nos.5 to 8 and having given earnest consideration to the submissions on both sides, perused the material on record. 8. The instant writ petition is pending consideration before this Court since 2010 and after so many adjournments being granted, the counter-affidavit has been filed and on 04.08.2014, this Court observed that after much persuasion, the counter-affidavit is filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle-18 stating that the land along with house No.12-8-423/10 was possessed and owned by Advaiah to an extent of 96.52 square meters or 115.47 square yards and that an amount of Rs.28,01,760/- was paid to him (4th respondent) towards compensation, which shows the house bearing Nos.12-8-422/4/1 and 12-8-423/10. In view of the above contentions in the counter, the original record was called for by this Court and also the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, it was stated that the payment is made pursuant to the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, who recommended payment of compensation amount on the basis of some credible evidence of ownership of the land and as the said H.No.12-8-423/10 allegedly owned by the writ petitioner and it has been contended that the amount of compensation, which is liable to be paid to the writ petitioner, was paid to the 4 th respondent herein under mistaken of facts without proper verification. In that view of the matter, this Court, on the said date of the posting of the case, has directed the Commissioner, GHMC to conduct an enquiry in respect of the land acquisition involving the disputed properties and submit a report to this Court. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court, on the said date of the posting of the case, has directed the Commissioner, GHMC to conduct an enquiry in respect of the land acquisition involving the disputed properties and submit a report to this Court. 9. As seen from the record, vide proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 18.07.2012, the assessment granted in favour of the 4th respondent herein by allotting premises bearing No.12-8-423/10, Mettuguda, Secunderbad, was cancelled based on the ownership documents submitted by Smt. Ch.Sarojini Devi, writ petitioner herein, and that the Commissioner has conducted an enquiry by giving proper opportunity to all the parties at Page No.3 of the said report, it was categorically stated that the writ petitioner - Chokkarapu Sarojini Devi is the owner of 1500 square yards in Sy.No.793 situated at Mettuguda, and out of which, she sold away 1014 square yards to Y.V.Bhaskar, leaving an extent of 486 square yards of land and at Sl.No.14, at page No.4 of the report, the name of 4th respondent was shown to be owner and possessor of land to an extent of 96.52 square meters or 115.47 square yards and at page No.6 of the said report, it is stated as follows: “ In this view of the matter, it is evident that the Corporation has acquired 115.39 square yards of land in premises No.12-8-423/10 under private negotiation and paid compensation to Sri. R.Advaiah without verifying the documents and the wrong payment of compensation amounting to Rs.28,01,760/- was made to Advaiah without verifying his documents, which are liable to be recovered from him and shall be paid to actual owner i.e. the writ petitioner - Smt. Chokkarapu Sarojini Devi.” 10. It is also stated that disciplinary action will be initiated against the erring Town Planning Officer for payment of compensation to the 4th respondent, who has not produced any valid document in support of his claim in respect of house premises bearing No.12-8-423/10. 11. It is also stated that disciplinary action will be initiated against the erring Town Planning Officer for payment of compensation to the 4th respondent, who has not produced any valid document in support of his claim in respect of house premises bearing No.12-8-423/10. 11. Having perused the said enquiry report, as the basic grievance of the writ petitioner is, for non-consideration of the representations made by her for payment of compensation and as the Commissioner by conducting an enquiry by themselves came to conclusion that the compensation amount in respect of the land of the petitioner bearing H.No.12-8-423/10 to an extent of 115.39 square yards was wrongly paid to the 4th respondent and has stated that the amount will be paid to the writ petitioner, who is actual owner of the land admeasuring 115.39 square yards or 96.52 square meters. 12. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that even as on today, though there was a report filed by the Commissioner, GHMC by conducting enquiry as early on 25.10.2014, in pursuance of the directions of this Court, and the authorities having come to a conclusion that the writ petition is entitled to the compensation of Rs.28,01,760/- for the land acquired to an extent of land admeasuring 115.39 square yard or 96.52 square meters, the respondents are duty-bound to pay the compensation to the writ petitioner forthwith and though the matter has been adjourned from time to time, the respondents till date are not paid the said compensation, which is ex facie illegal and arbitrary on the part of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein and also amounts to depriving the legitimate right of the writ petitioner from enjoying the fruits of her own land. In the enquiry report submitted by the Commissioner, they would pay the amount to the writ petitioner and it was categorically stated that they would take appropriate action upon the erring officials for payment of the compensation to a wrong person. Be that as it may, the respondents ought to have at least paid the compensation to the writ petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition to show their bona fides. However, they are seeking time from this Court even to honour their own undertaking in the enquiry report. 13. Be that as it may, the respondents ought to have at least paid the compensation to the writ petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition to show their bona fides. However, they are seeking time from this Court even to honour their own undertaking in the enquiry report. 13. Evidently, as it is clear from the report of the Commissioner, GHMC, that the land to an extent of 115.39 square yards or 96.52 square meters belongs to the writ petitioner, which was acquired for the purpose of road widening by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are duty-bound to pay the compensation amount of Rs.28,01,760/- to the writ petitioners herein even as on the date of filing of report, but instead kept dodging the payment for no fault of the writ petitioners. 14. Therefore, in that view of the matter, in considered opinion of this Court, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are legally bound to pay the compensation of Rs.28,01,760/- forthwith for the land acquired from the first writ petitioner to an extent of 115.39 square yards or 96.52 square meters within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, besides they are also liable to pay the interest accrued thereupon @ 6% per annum from the date of the writ petition to till the payment is realized. 15. In the above stated circumstances, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay the amount of Rs.28,01,760/- towards the land to an extent of 115.39 square yards or 96.52 square meters acquired for the road widening to the writ petitioners within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order @ 6% per annum simple interest on the said amount from the date of filing of enquiry report before this Court on 25.10.2014 to till realization. However, insofar as the balance of land that was alleged to be acquired by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, as there is no substantial proof submitted by the writ petitioners that the balance of land has been acquired by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent Court of law for redressal of their grievance and also in respect of other relief sought against the unofficial respondents and ventilate their grievance. 16. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.