IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 9898 of 2007 Between: Rasam Srinivas Rao S/o.Suryanarayanamurthy R/o.D.No.17-5-10/A, Opp Syndicate Bank, Chudemella vari Street, Vizianagaram - 2. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Roads and Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Department, vizianagaram. 3 The Commissioner, Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram. .....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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in demolishing the petitioners property bearing door No. 18-2-10, Raja Street, vizianagara without folliwing dure process of law for the purpose of road widening as as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to demolsih the petitioner's building bearing Door No. 18-2-10, Raja Street, vizianagaram and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 9898 of 2007 Order: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing the petitioner’s property bearing door No.18-2-10, Raja Street, Vizianagaram, without following the due process of law, for the purpose of road widening, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents not to demolish the said property of the petitioner. This Court, on 01.05.2007, while ordering notice before admission, passed the following interim order: “Status quo obtaining as on today with regard to the property of the petitioner shall be maintained. However, it shall be open to the respondents to acquire the property of the petitioner to the extent it is needed, duly following the procedure prescribed.” Thereafter, on 03.07.2007, this Court has passed the following order in W.P.M.P. No. 17744 of 2007 in W.P. No. 9898 of 2007: “This Court has already passed an interim order on 01.05.2007. Thereafter the third respondent issued notices dated 26.05.2007 and 18.06.2007. The purport of these notices is that while according approval for the plan submitted by the petitioner in the year 1985, a condition was imposed to the eﬀect that he should maintain a set back of 4.27 metres towards East-West and 7.32 metres towards North-South abutting the road for the purpose of widening. The petitioner was required to handover the said site. This Court does not ﬁnd illegality or inﬁrmity in such a course of action. The petitioner is not supposed to construct over and above what was sanctioned, particularly towards road. The mere fact that other deviations were regularized in favour of the petitioner through the proceedings dated 12.12.1997, does not absolve the petitioner of his liability to surrender the portion earmarked for road widening. Hence, it is directed that the respondents shall not insist on the petitioner to handover any site over and above what was earmarked in the original sanctioned plan. The petitioner shall also be given ﬁfteen (15) days time to remove the unauthorized portion, if any, after marking is done by the third respondent.” The case of the petitioner is that initially the respondents have proposed to widen the road by 60 feet and now they are widening the road up to 80 feet, and because of that, his property is going to be affected. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the 3 rd respondent, which clearly indicates that the petitioner has unauthorisedly constructed ground + three ﬂoors, without obtaining any permission, in the guise of roof alteration permission, and since the said construction is causing hindrance to vehicular traﬃc, the proposed road widening is essential. However, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for the relief of compensation, which he is entitled to. Permission is accorded, and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for the relief of compensation, which he is entitled to. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 28.07.2008 Nsr