THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.31248 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in attempting to dispossess the petitioner from premises bearing D.Nos.47/1 and 47/2 (old Door Nos.4/1 and 4/2), situated at Kagithalapenta, Chemmumiyapet, Kadapa City, YSR District, without following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) and consequently, direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of the premises bearing D.Nos.47/1 and 47/2 (old Door Nos.4/1 and 4/2), Kagithalapenta, Chemmumiyapet, Kadapa City, YSR District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 15.12.2010. The petitioner submits that the respondents proposed to construct protection wall along with Buggvanka Canal with a width of 80 meters in between the proposed walls and had acquired certain properties under the provisions of the Act, and the respondents constructed an over bridge contrary to the approved plan and started to take deviation to raise protection wall through the subject property without following the procedure envisaged under the Act. It is stated that the proposed construction is contrary to the approved plan, wherein the width in between the two protection walls is fixed as 80 meters, which is evident from the information furnished by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub- Division, Kadapa vide his letter dated 06.04.2010 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in response to an application submitted by one Mr.Jagadish Reddy. The petitioner submits that as per the deviated proposed construction, the width of the canal would be 96 meters instead of 80 meters, which is contrary to the approved plan. He further submits that if the approved plan is adhered to by the respondents, the subject property would not at all be required to be taken possession by the respondents; and even assuming that the subject property is required to be acquired by the respondents, they cannot do so without following the due process of law as envisaged under the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner purchased the property in question under a registered sale deed in the year 2010 and that the respondents are attempting to acquire the land for the purpose of construction of protection wall for Buggavanka Canal without following the due process of law. Hence, the petitioner prays to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for R-1, R- 3 and R-4 contended that only after following the due process of law, action will be initiated, in case the property of the petitioner is required for the purpose of construction of protection wall for Buggavanka Canal. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also contended that the property of the petitioner would be acquired after following the due process of law, in case the property of the petitioner is required for the purpose of construction of protection wall for Buggavanka Canal. The grievance of the petitioner is that without following the due process of law, the respondents are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased a site along with structures bearing Door Nos.47/1 and 47/2 of Kagithalapaenta, Chemmumiyapet, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District, under a registered sale deed and as such, the respondents have no authority to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the building in question. In case the property of the petitioner is required for the purpose of construction of protection wall for Buggavanka Canal, the respondents have to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the Act. If the respondents do not follow the procedure as contemplated under the Act, they are not supposed to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the property in question without following the due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 28-11-2011 Prv