IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2735 OF 2012 Between: Banka Venkata Ramana Rao. - - - Petitioner. AND Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Special Officer & District Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District and another. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2735 OF 2012 O R D E R: This writ petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to demolish the petitioner’s property i.e. building bearing D.No.4-3-21/A situated on the main road of Chittinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District under the guise of center widening at Chittinagar circle, Vijayawada without issuing any notice and without following any procedure contemplated under law as illegal, arbitrary against the principles of natural justice and violative under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, in the interest of justice. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows : The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the building bearing D.No.4-3-21/A on the main road of Chittinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna district. Originally, the petitioner’s father occupied an extent of 150 Sq. yards of land in the year 1946 and constructed a shed in the said site and subsequently in the year 1953 replaced the shed with a pucca terraced building and as such applied for grant of assignment of the said land in his favour on 08-02-1956. Subsequently, on 10-10-1956 the respondents herein have passed a resolution agreeing for assignment of the land and as such on 25-03- 1958, the Municipality also passed another resolution No.234 relinquishing its rights in the said property and recommended for its assignment pursuant to a letter from the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada. The Deputy Tahsildar, inspected the site and reported no objection for the assignment. Subsequently, the council also passed a resolution No.930 affirming its previous resolution, but very curiously on 25-10- 1965 the Tahsildar served an eviction notice, questioning which, the petitioner’s father filed a Suit in O.S. No.27 of 1967, which was dismissed in the lower Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner’s father preferred an Appeal in A.S. No.171 of 1968, which was allowed before the lower appellate Court. Subsequently, in the year 1978 when the respondents tried to interfere with the possession of the property, his father filed O.S. No.850 of 1978 seeking for permanent injunction, which was dismissed, but subsequently Appeal Suit No.41 of 1981 was allowed in the lower appellate Court. Challenging the said appeal, the respondents preferred Second Appeal No.205 of 1992, which was also dismissed confirming the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, on the death of the petitioner’s father in the year 1994, the petitioner came on record as his legal heir in the Second Appeal. Subsequent thereafter, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property by leasing out the ground and first floor of the building for commercial purpose. Further, the petitioner has been continuously paying the municipal taxes of the said building since the date of his occupation. While so, on 11-03-2003, the second respondent issued a notice directing the petitioner to surrender 25 Sq. feet of land towards east side of his building on free of cost for extension Chittinagar circle. Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered the same; in turn the second respondent also issued a far-bond, which the petitioner has not utilized so far. While things stood thus, the respondents, without following due process of law are again resorting to demolish the building of the petitioner and trying to encroach upon his entire property to an extent of 150 Sq. yards. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are trying to demolish the building of the petitioner under the guise of center widening at Chittinagar circle, Vijayawada and trying to encroach upon his entire property to an extent of 150 Sq. yards. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier occasion also the petitioner had surrendered an extent of 25 Sq. feet for extension of the same Chittinagar circle to the Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada and again without serving any show-cause notice on the petitioner, the respondents are trying demolish the building of the petitioner. The learned standing counsel for the respondents, however, submits submit that even as per the averments made in the writ petition, it is only an apprehension of the petitioner that the respondents are trying to demolish his building and his fears are only imaginary. In view of the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the respondents that the respondents are not encroaching or demolishing the building of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to follow due procedure, as envisaged under law, in the event of the petitioner’s property i.e. building bearing D.No.4-3-21/A, situated on the main road of Chittinagar, is required for the purpose of widening the center at Chittinagar circle, Vijayawada, Krishna district. Accordingly, with the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J. Date.03-02-2012. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2735 OF 2012 February, 03, 2012 DSH