IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16336 of 2004 Between: Sri Vikas Jain, S/o. Sri Kantilal Jain R/o. Flat No.301, Sukhsagar Apartments, 3-5-805, Hyderguda, Hyd. Andhra Pradesh ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Municipal Admn., Govt of A.P., Secretariat, Hyd. 2 The Commissioner, Serlingampally Municipality, R.R. District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to Issue a appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in digging trench in my plot land bearing No. 8.9 and Northern portion of plot No.10 in Sy.No.5 totally admeasuring and compressing on an area of 551 sq. yards or equivalent to 460.70 sq. mtrs., situated at Serlingampalli village Mandal and Municipality, R.R. District, A.P. as illegal unlawful and unjust opposed to Article 14, 16 & 21 and 300A of constitution of India and in violating the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to stop forthwith the illegal act of digging trench in the said plot as also close the trenches with the mud digged out. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. P.N.A. Christian Counsel for respondents: G.P., Muncipal Admn. & Urban Dev. The Court made the following Order: It is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, Serilingampally Municipality is merged with Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Hence, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, stands impleaded as respondent No.3 in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of residential sites bearing Plot Nos.8, 9 and 10 in Sy.No.5, admeasuring 551 sq. yards, equivalent to 460.70 sq. mts., situated at Serilingampally village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is his grievance that though he is the owner of the said residential sites, the labour engaged by respondent No.2 are taking steps to dig a trench in the said sites for the purpose of laying a pipeline and respondent No.2 cannot do so without following due process of law. 3. At the stage of admission, this court, by order dated 13-09-2004, directed the respondents not to lay a pipeline through the property of the petitioner. The said order of this court continued all along during the pendency of the writ petition. Though the writ petition is of the year 2004, no counter affidavit is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner claims ownership of the property in question and the same is not controverted by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit and further taking into account the interim order of this court referred above, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents not to deprive the petitioner of his residential sites or any portion thereof as otherwise than due process of law. However, it is made clear that if any portion or part of the property of the petitioner is required for any public purpose, this order will not preclude the respondents either to take consent from the petitioner or to take steps for acquisition in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. August 3, 2009 MRR ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP {JGK}