IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 20018 of 2007 Between: D.K.Lakshminarayana S/o.D.K.Ramappa R/o.D.No.28-443, Boyaveedhi, Ananthapur ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ananthapur District at Ananthapur 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur 3 The Mandal Revenue officer, Ananthapur 4 Ananthapur Municipal Corporation, Ananthapur rep.by its Commissioner .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the possession of petitioner over the property located in TS.No.1959/4, TS.No.1960/2 and TS.No.1960/1 of Ananthapur Town,as otherwise than in due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Art.300- A of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the above property either by demolishing compound wall encircling the cinema theatre or any other structures in the above property award costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 20018 of 2007 22-06-2009 Oral Order: The writ petition is fundamentally misconceived and is filed without any basis in fact as transpires from the averments in the writ petition as well as subsequent events. The petitioner along with his brothers claim to be the owner of lands in T.S.Nos.1959/4, 1960/2 and 1960/1 of Anantapur town and to have been in possession and enjoyment of the property since purchase from the vendors in 1980. In para.3 of the writ petition there is a vague allegation that on 18-09-2007 the 4th respondent (the Anantapur Municipal Corporation represented by the Commissioner) under the instructions of the 1st respondent (the District Collector, Anantapur) “is seeking to demolish a part of compound wall”. Since no counter-affidavit is filed for two years since the institution of the writ petition, this court by order dated.08-06-2009 directed the respondents 1 to 4 to be present in the court. The respondents except the 1st respondent are present in the Court and WPMP No.15551 of 2009 is filed by an affidavit sworn to by the Joint Collector and In-charge Collector seeking dispensing with the presence of the 1st respondent on the ground that no officer is yet substantively posted as Collector and the previous incumbent has proceeded on transfer to another station. This application in the circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit is ordered. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit clearly and categorically asserting that there was never, ever any interference by any revenue authority to demolish the compound wall or dispossess the petitioner. Even in the affidavit filed by the Joint Collector seeking dispensing with the presence of the 1st respondent, it is categorically asserted that there is no attempt ever made to dispossess the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed today by the 4th respondent, the allegation that the compound wall of the petitioner was to be demolished by the 4th respondent at the instance of the 1st respondent, is denied. It is stated that for enabling free flow of excess rain water to Manvanki and in public interest, the compound wall was sought to be removed, but it is denied that the Corporation would demolish the compound wall without following the due process of law. The 4th respondent states that if the demolition of part of compound wall is required for public purpose, the respondent will follow the due process of law. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, except a bald statement that on the instructions of the 1st respondent, the 4th respondent is seeking to demolish part of the compound wall on 18-09-2007, no specific overt acts are attributed to the 4th respondent as to what particular action was initiated or taken by the 4th respondent. In view of the breezy averments in the affidavit there is an equivocal denial by the 4th respondent. Such vague assertions and filing of writ petitions on such basis, needs to be deprecated. If the petitioner is desirous of seeking serious relief for serious injury by State action, the plea must be specific and the relevant facts stated. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition falls for short of these standards of pleadings. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is misconceived and in any event in view of the denial of the allegations in the counter affidavits filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 4, no action is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 22-06-2009 Pvks