IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.28254 of 2008 Between: Mrs. Suvarna Lakshmi (Major) W/o. K.N. Suresh, R/o. 6/6 6/9, G. Rama Rao Street, Kadapa. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Kadapa. 2 The Executive Engineer Roads & Buildings, Kadapa. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa. ...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 a direction or an order or a writ one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents to demolish the pillars of the Building or any part thereof on premises bearing No.6/8 and 6/9 G. Rama Rao Street, Kadapa despite road being widened to more than 55 ft. is illegal and abuse of executive power. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.C.FRANCIS Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.28254 of 2008 ORDER: According to the petitioner, she is the owner of an extent of land admeasuring five {5} cents (60 x 37 feet) situated at Ramarao Street, Kadapa and in the said land, she constructed a house bearing Nos.6/8 and 6/9. However, for the purpose of road widening, a part of the land and house was acquired and land acquisition proceedings were initiated. Accordingly, the same were acquired and after following due procedure provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, compensation was also paid to the petitioner. In the remaining part, as the petitioner is at liberty to proceed with the construction of any structures and when she started construction, the respondents- authorities threatened her stating that the said building will be demolished. Questioning the said action, she approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition. On instructions, Mr. S.I.Newton, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, submitted that under the guise of construction of a house in the remaining part of the land, the petitioner is encroaching into the road, which was widened by acquiring the said land, which necessitated approaching the petitioner and directed her not to raise any structures. Heard both the sides. In the light of the said submission, this Court directs the petitioner to approach respondents 2 and 3 and give representations stating that the said construction is strictly in the remaining piece of land and she has not encroached into any road for which the land was acquired, within a period of three {3} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents 2 and 3 shall cause a detailed enquiry and ascertain as to whether the petitioner is making construction only in the remaining part of the land or encroaching into the road, which was widened, within a period of three {3} weeks thereafter. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. It is needless to mention that the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today. _________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 26th December 2008 Note: Wire at party’s cost B/O RRB