ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not awarding compensation to the petitioners’ for dispossessing them from their land admeasuring 195.5 square yards forming part of premises on southern side, bearing municipal Nos.8-2-236 to 8-2-238, situated at St. Mary Road, Secunderabad, vide notice dated nil-01-2003 bearing No.1/RW/SMR/CZ/SD/2003, without following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(for brevity ‘RFCTLARR Act, 2013’), as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential relief. 2. Heard Sri Vivek Jain learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy learned Standing Counsel for GHMC. 3. The case of the petitioners, briefly stated, as narrated in the writ affidavit, is that petitioner Nos.1 and 2, along with their brother E. Raju, purchased southern portion of the property bearing Municipal Nos.8-2-236 to 8-2-238, situated at St. Mary Road, Secunderabad, under a registered sale deed, dated 10.12.1989, bearing Document No.378 of 1989, from one Cheekoti Visweswar Rao and two others. Upon the death of their brother, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, being his only legal heirs, succeeded to their brother’s one-third undivided share and thus became absolute owners of the said portion of the property. Petitioner Nos.3, 4, and 5 are the owners of the remaining northern portion of the same property admeasuring 132 square yards, having purchased it under a registered sale deed bearing document No.343/1989 dated 10.12.1989. 3.1. While so, the respondent authorities issued a letter dated nil–01.2003 informing the petitioners that in connection with the proposed road widening of St. Mary Road from Clock Tower to Secunderabad Railway Station, an extent of 277 square yards of the petitioners’ property is being affected. It was proposed to the extend benefits under G.O.Ms.No.483, Municipal Administration, dated 24.08.1998, for re-development of the balance land and insofar as the structures are concerned, the compensation was quantified as Rs.1,51,416/-. 3.2. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner Nos.1 and 3, along with other affected plot owners filed W.P.No.6577 of 2003 challenging the action of the respondents in demolishing without following due process of law. By order dated 21.04.2003, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the parties therein to maintain status quo as on that day. 3.3. 3.2. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner Nos.1 and 3, along with other affected plot owners filed W.P.No.6577 of 2003 challenging the action of the respondents in demolishing without following due process of law. By order dated 21.04.2003, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the parties therein to maintain status quo as on that day. 3.3. Subsequently, the respondents issued notices dated 11.08.2005 and 23.08.2005 intimating their intention to acquire the petitioners’ property for road widening, however, the petitioners have not given their consent for such road widening. Challenging the said action, the petitioners filed W.P.No.19137 of 2005, contending that the respondents sought to demolish the structures without giving 60 days notice, without hearing objections, and without payment of compensation for land and structures. The said writ petition was disposed of, vide order dated 06.09.2005, leaving it open to the respondents to acquire the land for road widening either under Sections 145 and 147 of the HMC Act, 1955, or by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Despite the said orders, the respondent authorities demolished the structures existing in the subject property on 23.08.2005, after serving notice on the petitioners on the same day at about 6:00 p.m. Thereafter, by letter dated 20.12.2005, the respondent authorities intimated the petitioners that the structures had been taken over for road widening and that the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.483, Municipal Administration, dated 01.04.2008, or Transferable Development Rights (TDR) would be extended. 3.4. On 11.05.2012, the petitioners submitted a representation to the respondent authorities stating that the demolition was illegal and carried out without following due process under the Land Acquisition Act, and in violation of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.19137 of 2005, and requested payment of compensation. Complaining that no action was taken on the said representation, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the subject property and a part of their land is affected in road widening. He further submitted that petitioners cannot be forced or compelled to accept for acquisition of their property under the guise of a Government Order, without paying compensation to them as per the prevailing market value, by duly following the procedure contemplated under the L.A. Act and prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 5. He further submitted that petitioners cannot be forced or compelled to accept for acquisition of their property under the guise of a Government Order, without paying compensation to them as per the prevailing market value, by duly following the procedure contemplated under the L.A. Act and prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation submitted that the Government would give concessions to the petitioners as per GO.Ms.No.483, Municipal Administration Department, dated 24.08.1998, in the form of TDR to the extent of their land affected in road widening and therefore, the petitioners would not be put to any loss financially. He further submitted that the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC has informed that the subject land is recorded as ‘G’ Abadi in Town Survey Land Records (TSLR) and further, the petitioners were offered the structural compensation vide Cheque bearing No.000077 on 16.01.2003 for an amount of Rs.1,51,416/-, but they refused to receive the same. 5.1. It is further submitted that on 20.12.2005, respondent- corporation has informed the petitioners to submit registered ownership documents of the subject land to extend them others benefits such as TDR, but the petitioners have failed to furnish the ownership documents and therefore, the action of the respondents in acquiring the petitioners’ land for road widening cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary and hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused all the relevant material. 7. Section 146 of GHMC Act provides for acquisition of immovable property required for public purpose by agreement. The word ‘agreement’ denotes the express agreement between the Corporation, represented by the Commissioner, and the land owner/s thereof, with regard to acceptance of offer of TDR/FSI by the land owner/s concerned. 8. Section 147 of the GHMC Act envisages the procedure to be followed when immovable property cannot be acquired by agreement. The said Section postulates that whenever the Commissioner, representing the Corporation, is unable to acquire the immovable property by agreement with the land owner/s concerned, the same shall be acquired by following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 9. The said Section postulates that whenever the Commissioner, representing the Corporation, is unable to acquire the immovable property by agreement with the land owner/s concerned, the same shall be acquired by following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 9. For interpretation of Sections 146 and 147 of the GHMC Act, the language employed in the said provisions needs to be considered for knowing the legislative intent. The language employed in the aforesaid provisions is plain and unambiguous, in which case, the scope of legislation or the intention of the legislature cannot be enlarged or changed (See the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (Petitioner) Ltd , (2003) 2 SCC 111 ). 10. In the case on hand, the respondent-Corporation proposed to acquired the land belonging to the petitioners by giving them the concessions as provided for in GO.Ms.No.483, MA, dated 24.08.1998, however, the petitioners declined to accept the offer of respondents-Corporation with regard to such concessions and called upon the respondents-Corporation to follow the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring the land belonging to them. Thus, there is no consensus between the respondent-Corporation and the petitioners-land owners for invoking Section 146 of GHMC Act. In other words, there is no express agreement between the petitioners and the respondent- Corporation, whereunder the petitioners accepted the offer made by the respondent-Corporation to extend the concessions as provided in GO.Ms.No.483, dated 24.08.1998. Thus, the two essential requirements, i.e., offer and acceptance, to constitute an agreement, are not satisfied in the instant case, which empowers the respondent-Corporation to invoke Section 146 of the GHMC Act. 11. When a similar issue fell for consideration before a larger Bench of High Court of Bombay in S hree Vinayak Builders and Developers, Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , (2022) 5 AIR Bom R 803 , it was held that the acquisition under Section 126(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, has to be made only on consensus between both the parties, but not at the option of the Acquiring authority alone. 12. Section 146 of the GHMC Act is akin to Section 126(1) (a) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the case on hand. 13. 12. Section 146 of the GHMC Act is akin to Section 126(1) (a) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the case on hand. 13. In the light of the foregoing reasons, discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University’s case (cited supra) and the judgment of larger Bench of High Court of Bombay in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers, Nagpur’s case (cited supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that for invoking Section 146 of the GHMC Act, a consensus between the respondents-Corporation and petitioners-land owners is mandatory and it is not at the option of the acquiring authority alone. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be forced or compelled to accept the concessions provided for in GOMs.No.483, dated 24.08.1998 and the respondent-Corporation has to necessarily follow the due procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring the subject land belonging to the petitioners. 14. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by High Court of Bombay in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers, Nagpur’s case (cited supra), this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to approach the respondent- corporation and submit a representation, along with all supporting documents/revenue records to prove their ownership and possession over the subject property, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation, the Respondent-Corporation shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 15. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.