HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26673 of 2011 Date: 22.09.2011 Between: Ravulapalli Venkateswarlu ..... Petitioner AND: The Government of A.P., Reptd., By its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad And two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Administration Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri S.Nageswara Reddy Standing Counsel for Municipality This Court made the following: - ORDER: Notice in R.O.C.No.1996/2011-G1, dated 27.06.2011, issued under purported exercise of powers under Sections 171 to 179 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) and Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1920, by respondent No.2 is assailed in this Writ Petition. I have heard Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2. The petitioner is the owner of the property bearing D.No.4-374 in Survey No.174 situated within the municipal limits of respondent No.2-Corporation. By the impugned notice, respondent No.2 has informed the petitioner that in pursuance of the proposal to widen the existing Kurnool road to 100 feet, the petitioner’s property is required. While asserting that in terms of Sections 171 to 179 of the Act and the Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1920, respondent No.2 is vested with the powers to remove all the buildings for the purpose of road widening, in para No.4 of the notice, the petitioner is called upon to submit his objections within 15 days if he has any. However, in para No.5 of the notice, it is stated that the petitioner shall remove the building at his own expenses within 15 days, failing which, respondent No.2 will remove the building and recover the expenses from the petitioner. In my opinion, the impugned notice does not conform to the legal principles and the same is far too in excess of powers of respondent No.2. Under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of his property except by following the procedure established by law. Under Section 174 of the Act, while vesting the power of acquisition of the property comprising land and buildings of any person in the municipal body, a procedure has been laid down which includes payment of compensation as envisaged therein. Unless the said procedure is followed by respondent No.2, it has no power or authority to take over the private property belonging to the petitioner. As noted above, the notice itself is self-contradictory. On one hand in para 4, the petitioner was asked to submit his objections within 15 days and on the other, in para 5, he was directed to remove the building within 15 days and hand over vacant possession, failing which, the Corporation itself will undertake the said task. Even for this reason, the impugned notice cannot be sustained. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to act strictly in accordance with Section 174 of the Act, if it requires the petitioner’s property for the purpose of road widening. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.32916 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd September 2011 DR