ORDER : SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J. W.P.No.16348 of 2011: The instant writ petition is filed seeking a direction from this vide Court to quash the proceedings/notices issued to the petitioners No.B/608/2008, dated 19.06.2009 by the 3rd respondent though their premises are not falling under G.O.Ms.No.363, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I.1) Department, dated 21.08.2010, as illegal, improper and violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India and violative of established judicial precedents and further direction was sought to the respondents to lay a road as per the G.O.Ms.No.363 dated 21.08.2010 and plans annexed to it in respect of Circle-X of GHMC without any deviation and violations. W.P.No.31703 of 2011 2. The instant writ petition has been filed declaring the action of the respondents in issuing land acquisition proceedings No.B/608/2008 dated 26.08.2011 in Form-9 and 10 without considering the representations of the petitioners as per this Hon’ble Court’s direction in W.P.No.13400/2008, dated 29.04.2010, as illegal, improper and violative of Articles 300-A and 350 of the Constitution of India, and to further direct the respondents to lay a road as per the earlier plan running from A.G.Colony to Rajeev Nagar T-Junction straight road through unused water sump area, as it causes no hardship either to the public and no financial burden on the State Exchequer and also to protect the religious shrines in the course of laying of a road. 3. As similar prayers are sought in both the writ petitions and issue is one and the same, though writ petitions were heard separately, they are being disposed of by this common order. 4. The brief facts of the case in W.P.No.16348 of 2011 are that, the 3rd respondent had issued public notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the ‘Act’), proposing to acquire the houses of the writ petitioners for widening of the road and the same was published in a local newspapers on 29.07.2008, pursuant to which, the petitioners alleged to have appeared in the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act. The brief averments of the writ petitioners are that, they have purchased the portions of the house bearing No.8-4-550/271 individually from D.R.K.Prasad through his General Power of Attorney Holder by distinct and different sale deeds. The brief averments of the writ petitioners are that, they have purchased the portions of the house bearing No.8-4-550/271 individually from D.R.K.Prasad through his General Power of Attorney Holder by distinct and different sale deeds. That the National- Highway Hyderabad to Bombay at the intersection ESI Hospital, Yerragutta, a perpendicular road was passing from Government Mental Hospital, Ayurvedic, Govt.Hospital, Kalyan Nagar, Vikaspuri, which joins at AGs quarters junction ad at this place, it is taking a right turn upto DGHS hospital, proceeding straight to roads from the corners of AGS quarters land upto temple at Natraj Nagar Junction, and from the Natraj Nagar junction right in front of the temple proceeds towards Natraj Nagar, Yerragdda. Thereafter, the road take left turns towards the Nagarjuna Enclave Balaji Swarnapuri Colony joins at the main road T-junction Sri Ram Nagar, from T-Junction Sriram Nagar to Nagarjuna Enclave, and there is a 60 ft existing road, from Sri Ram Nagar T-junction to Nagarjuna Enclave either side of the land are under the layouts, that from the temple to the Nagarjuna Enclave Circle, 20 ft. road is in existence. 5. The Government after careful consideration keeping the view of the vehicular traffic, intended to widen the road to 60 ft. for smooth traffic flow; that the Northern side of the 20 ft road to be vide widened further to 40 ft as per the Govt. approved plan G.O.Ms.No.363 dated 21.08.2010, and further the plans annexed to it and Scheme was also obtained by the Government by consent after survey and inquiry. 6. It is contended that basing on the GHMC proposals, the land acquisition notification was issued on 24.07.2008 and objections were called for under Section 5(A) of the Act and without conducting physical enquiry as per the Act, notices were issued only to four persons on the Northern side of the existing 20 ft. road and unfortunately, the residential houses on the Southern side of the road, though not affected by the G.O.Ms.No.363 dated 21.08.2010, were also issued acquisition notices and that though the notices were issued to one D.R.K.Prasad, who was the previous owner, and only on filing the representations, notices were issued to the petitioners though they are no way connected to the road widening scheme. 7. 7. It is also contended that due to external forces, political and biased ideas, the GHMC officials in collusion with the local leaders, are harassing the petitioners and threatening of eviction though their residential houses on the Southern side though they are not at all falling under the road widening programme as per the G.O.Ms.No.363, dated 21.08.2010. Further, though a representation was submitted on 25.05.2011 to the 1st respondent, the same was not disposed of by the GHMC. It is also contended that, as per G.O.Ms.No.363, dated 21.08.2010, the notices issued by the Land Acquisition proceedings under B/608/2008, dated 19.06.2019, are totally illegal, without any application of mind or sanction of law and liable to be quashed and therefore, they prayed to direct the respondents to strictly adhere to G.O.Ms.No.363 dated 21.08.2010 and the plans annexed to it and to quash the land acquisition proceedings, dated 19.06.2009. 8. Per contra, the respondents have filed the counter-affidavit, contending that the respondents have issued the proceedings No.B/608/2008 dated 19.06.2009 by considering all the objections and adhering to the G.O.Ms.No.363, dated 21.08.2010 and all the objections raised by the petitioners against the land acquisition proposals were examined in detail and disposed of by indicating detailed remarks on each and every objection vide proceedings dated 19.06.2009. Further, it was contended that the road development plan, on the basis of which the land acquisition proposals were drawn was incorporated in the master plan vide approved G.O.Ms.No.363 dated 21.08.2010. Accordingly, only Natraj Nagar Colony road is proposed as 60 ft. wide road in it, as such, the land acquisition proposals moved by the respondent-vide Corporation are in accordance with the master plan approved G.O.Ms.No.363 and there is no deviation to the said G.O., and in fact, it was also contended that the petitioners along with other local residents of the area have participated in Section 5(A) enquiry and the notification under Section 4(1) was published in local newspapers and the individual applications were examined, considered and disposed of. That the contention raised by the petitioners that these respondents have not followed G.O.Ms.No.363, is erroneous and untenable. It is also contended that for the better administration and access to the inmates of the said area, the roads are being widened keeping the view of the benefit of the public at large. That the contention raised by the petitioners that these respondents have not followed G.O.Ms.No.363, is erroneous and untenable. It is also contended that for the better administration and access to the inmates of the said area, the roads are being widened keeping the view of the benefit of the public at large. It is contended that it is not correct to say that the petitioners lands are not falling under 60 ft. road as per the plans annexed to G.O.Ms.No.363 and the master plan approved by said G.O. As such, it cannot be said that land acquisition proposals are contrary to the master plan approved vide said G.O., and the respondents authorities prayed to dismiss the instant writ petitions as being misconceived without there being any substantial proof. 9. Insofar as the W.P.No.31703 of 2011 is concerned, though petitioners are different, the reliefs are one and the same and pertaining to the same area, same road and same land acquisition proceedings, dated 26.8.2011 was challenged and that the counter-affidavit was also filed in the similar lines with that of the W.P.No.16348 of 2011. 10. Heard Mr. Mohd.Abdul Rasheed, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC and having given earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, have perused the material on record. 11. The sum and substance of the case of the writ petitioners is that, the official respondents are not following the due procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.363, dated 21.08.2010 and that though the residential houses of the petitioners are not coming under the 60 ft. road, they have proposed to road widening for 60 ft. road and that the authorities without following due procedure of law, has issued said notifications. 12. A perusal of the proceedings, dated 19.06.2009 would show that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has been approved vide by the District, Collector, Hyderabad District No.D3/10305/ 2008, dated 24.07.2008, which was published under ordinary clause in Hyderabad District Gazette No.90, dated 29.07.2008 and in local newspapers, namely, ‘Times of India’ (English) and ‘Surya’ (Telugu) on 29.07.2008 and at the locality on 30.06.2008. The Notice under vide Section 5A has been issued reference 3 rd cited calling for objections to the acquisition proceedings by fixing enquiry on 17.09.2008 and the said proceedings have also incorporated several objections raised by the individual religious structures along with residents of Rajiv Nagar, Natraj Nagar, Balaji Swarnapuri, and other localities and other individual persons. There is a clear observation by the District Collector in the said proceedings indicating that all the objections raised by the petitioners were duly taken care of and addressed thereupon, and further, it is also stated in the said proceedings that the road widening work has been taken up by the GHMC as per the Road Development Plan, approved by the Commissioner, GHMC and alignment cannot be changed which is done after taking the practical survey for laying the road. 13. Further, it is also stated in the said proceedings that road widening is proposed to meet the traffic congestion and for the public convenience and in the larger interest of the public. 14. The objections were duly considered and overruled and though the writ petitions have been filed way-back in the year 2011, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not indicated the present ground reality with regard to the widening of the road. The learned Standing Counsel has not placed any record whether the road widening programme has been undertaken or completed. In that view of the matter, the procedure contemplated under the Act has been duly followed by the respondents by issuing the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the objections under Section 5(A) of the Act were duly considered. That procedurally there is nothing to show that the neither the G.O.Ms.No.363 has been contravened nor any of the provisions of the Act have been contravened. It is settled law that in the case of larger interest of the public, the road widening of a particular road cannot be interdicted by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and more particularly, when there is no violation of any provisions of the statutes or the Rules governed therein. Further, there is no violation of principles of natural justice as contended. In the instant case, nothing is elicited by the writ petitioners warranting interference by this Court and accordingly, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. 15. Further, there is no violation of principles of natural justice as contended. In the instant case, nothing is elicited by the writ petitioners warranting interference by this Court and accordingly, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. 15. As it is evidently clear that there is no deviation to the alleged G.O.Ms.No.363, dated 21.08.2010 and nothing contrary has been placed by the petitioners to substantiate their grievance. In such view of the matter, the writ petitions are accordingly liable for rejection. 16. The Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.