HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.23659 of 2007 Date : 18-8-2011 Between: Dr.M.Krishna Prasad .. Petitioner And Amadalavalasa Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District .. Respondent Counsel for petitioner : Sri T.Lakshmikanth Counsel for respondent : Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, Standing Counsel The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings No.16/07, dated 5-10-2007, whereby the respondent has called upon the petitioner to remove the constructions made by him in Sy.No.129 of Krishnapuram village. The petitioner has constructed a house which was assigned Door Nos.9-1-236 and 237 in Sy.No.129 of Krishnapuram village. When the respondent sought to interfere with his possession, the petitioner has filed O.S.No.94/1997 in the court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The said suit was disposed of on 30-9-2004 holding that the petitioner/plaintiff is not the owner of the land but is the owner of only the super-structures and possessor of the land. However, while disposing of the said suit, the learned Senior Civil Judge issued a rather peculiar direction that the respondent shall not be entitled to evict the petitioner except by following due process of law by way of approaching the Civil Court but not by invoking the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short "the 1905 Act"). By the impugned notice, the respondent has called upon the petitioner to remove the structures over the land belonging to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the above mentioned decree submitted that the respondent is not entitled to issue the impugned notice as it can only initiate proceedings before the Civil Court. In my opinion, this submission of learned counsel is wholly misconceived. Under Section 194 of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 the respondent is vested with the power, inter alia, to evict persons, if they are found to be in unauthorized possession of the property belonging to the Municipality. As per the decree of the competent Civil Court mentioned above, the respondent is the owner of the property in question. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to remain in unauthorized possession of the same. Even though the Civil Court has restrained the respondent from invoking the provisions of the 1905 Act, with a further direction that it can only approach the Civil Court, in my opinion, no court can prevent the respondent from exercising its statutory powers. In this view of the matter, the decree of the Civil Court, as noted above, would not render the impugned order illegal or unenforceable. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.30815/2007 is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna reddy Date : 18-8-2011 AM