IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 7943 of 2008 Between: 1 Saragadam appalanaidu S/o.Venkata Rao R/o.H.No.1-138, Old (v), Pendurthi, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Saragadam Satyanarayana S/o. late Venkata Rao R/o.H.No.1-138, Old (v), Pendurthi, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner Asilametta Junction, Visakhapatnam. 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Assistant Commissioner, Pendurthy Ward No.71, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal corporation, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ in t he nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in marking the petitioners houses and shops bearing Assessment Nos. 1) 10000681873, 2) 10000681871, 3) 10000681819, 4) 10000681824, 5) 10000681869, 6) 10000681826, 7) 10000681821, 8) 10000681820, 9) 10000681822, 10) 10000681823, 11) 10000681825, 12) 10000681827, 13) 10000681870, 14) 10000681872, 15) 10000681874, to demolish for the purpose of road widening in Pendurthy village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to follow the due process of law by acquiring the land either by Land Acquisition or by consent and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri A. Ravi Shankar Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri N. Ranga Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: In [aphc1]this case, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent-Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation has been seeking to acquire their houses and shops[aphc2] for the purpose of widening the existing road, without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the respondent-Corporation has been offering meager amounts as compensation for the house and shops sought to be taken possession of by them. It is further asserted that the value offered by the Corporation is, in fact, less than the value prevailing for the land as also the value fixed by the revenue establishment of the State Government and, hence, the petitioners are not interested in agreeing to receive the compensation offered by the respondent-Corporation and deliver possession of their house and shops. It is needless to observe that the Municipal Corporation cannot take possession of the property owned by the citizens without recourse to law. The respondents are, therefore, directed to follow the procedure available either under Section 146 read with 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and acquire the house and shops in question and without adopting such a procedure, they should not insist upon the petitioners to part with the possession of their house and shops. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 11th April 2008 Note: Issue CC in two days. (bo) ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} [aphc1] [aphc2]