IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 28661 of 2011 Between: Smt Mote Seetha Devi and another. …PETITIONERS AND Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and another. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 28661 of 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in trying to demolish the houses of the petitioners at Door Nos.12-441/1 & 12-389/6, respectively in Anna nagar, Near Thota Garuvu, Aarilova, Visakhapatnam, as arbitrary and illegal and in violation of provisions of A.P. Municipal Act and consequently, direct the respondents not to demolish the properties of petitioners as mentioned above except in accordance with law. 2. The averments of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: Petitioner No.1 claims to be the owner and possessor of house bearing D.No.12/441 to an extent of 60 square yards in survey No.43, Chinnagadishi Village, Aarilova Sector-I, Visakhapatnam District, having purchased the said house on 25.04.2002 under an unregistered sale deed from one Kotturu Appa Rao and in turn the vendor of petitioner No.1 purchased the said plot from Kolli Chinna Appalanaidu by virtue of an assignment deed. Petitioner No.2 is the owner and possessor of house bearing D.No.12-389/6, Anna Nagar, Arilova Sector-I, Visakhapatnam. She purchased the said house on 20.05.2005 from one Alamanda Satheyya and his sons through an unregistered sale deed. In turn the vendor of petitioner No.2 was assigned the land to an extent of 60 square yards in the year 1986. There is a clause in the assignment deed that after ten years the property can be alienated. The petitioners after purchasing the said houses made constructions therein and thereafter, the property was subjected to assessment of tax and they are paying taxes to the Municipality. While the matter stood thus, the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation extended the existing 40 feet road into 60 feet road from Ambedkar Nagar to Arilova colony, without issuing any notice to the petitioners and the respondents are trying to demolish the construction of houses bearing Door Nos.12-441/1& 12-389 respectively. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed strong reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Pilli Lakshmana Rao Vs. Executive Officer[1], wherein it was held thus: “If the authorities, viz., the Mandal Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Executive Officer of local authority want to take any action of eviction, dispossession or demolition, first they shall issue a notice to the occupant/s calling upon him/them to show-cause as to why the proposed action shall not be taken. In receipt of such objections or explanation, if there is any objection as to the ownership of the property, the Mandal Revenue Officer or other authorities concerned shall determine the extent of encroachment or unauthorized occupation and shall determine whether the property in question belongs to the Government or any other local self Government authority or to the occupant/s. In case of demolition of the private property, the Mandal Revenue Officer or other authorities concerned shall determine the loss caused to the occupant/s on the basis of the assessment of damages, the Mandal Revenue Officer or the concerned authority shall take appropriate steps to disburse the amount qualified forthwith. If the demolition took place is in respect of the property of the Government, the question of payment of damages will not arise. The occupant/s is/are entitled to remove the material used for the construction. The Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue a notice within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order calling upon the claimant/occupant/s to show-cause as to why the action proposed shall not be taken by giving 60 days time to file the objections, if any. The person interested viz., the occupant/s shall submit him/their objections or explanation within the time stipulated together with any other documents he/they would like to rely upon in support of his their case. On receipt of such explanation/objections and documents, if any, the Mandal Revenue Officer or the concerned authority shall consider the same, if necessary, by giving an oral hearing and then pass appropriate orders within three months thereafter. In case of any enquiry, the same should be conducted in a summary way and the occupant/s shall produce all the evidence which he/they wants/want to rely upon before the Mandal Revenue Officer on the appointed day.” 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioners are not having any title to the property and they illegally occupied the site in question and made constructions and therefore, the question of issuing any notice does not arise. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that even the occupier of the land requires a notice for the proposed action that may be taken by the respondents. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to issue show-cause notice to the petitioners for the proposed action that may be taken by them and after receipt of explanation from the petitioners, take appropriate decision in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J OCTOBER 24, 2011 YVL [1] 2000 ALT 5 246