IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17365 of 2004 Between: Ravva Devudamma, W/o.Ravva Jany, Hindu, R/o. D.No.52-1-80/3, Plot No.14, N.S. Road, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Kakinada Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Kakinada Municipality, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, R.D.O. Office Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, M.R.O. Office, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents as illegal and ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides directing not to dispossess the Petitioner from the property bearing Door No.52-1-80/3, Plot No.14, N.S. Road, Kakinada, East Godavari District Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Josyula Bhaskara Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. S. Nageswara Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3: G.P., Revenue The Court made the following Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps to dispossess her from the property bearing Door No.52-1-80/3, Plot No.14, N.S. Road, Kakinada, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the late mother-in-law of the petitioner was the owner of the aforesaid house from the last more than 50 years and after her demise the petitioner has succeeded to the same. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the first respondent-Municipality is trying to dispossess her from the house in question without issuing any notice and opportunity to her. 3. At the stage of admission, this court, by order dated 12-10-2002, ordered stay of dispossession of the petitioner and the said order continued all along. Though the writ petition is of the year 2004, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the allegations of the petitioner. 4. The allegation of the petitioner is that she was not given any notice and opportunity before taking steps for her dispossession from the house in question. It is to be noted that that even for removal of any unauthorized constructions or encroachments, in view of the provisions under the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, the owner of property is to be given an opportunity to show cause as to why unauthorized constructions should not be removed or he/she should not be dispossessed. In view of the specific allegation of the petitioner that she was not given any notice before taking steps for demolition and the said allegation is also not controverted by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents not to take steps for demolition of the house in question or dispossess the petitioner there-from, without following due process of law. However, it is made clear that if it is found that any unauthorized constructions or encroachments are made, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. August 3, 2009 MRR ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP {SPJS}