IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5578 of 2008 Between: Sri Gottumukkala Rayapa Raju, S/o. Jagga Raju, R/o. D.No. 1-8-/1, Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Tahsildar, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam (Rural) ....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 any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in attempting to demolish petitioner's A.C. Sheet roofed house in an extent of 41.04 Sq.Mtrs situated in an extent of 360 sq.yds bearing D.No. 1-8/1 with assessment No. 10002/50465 situated in an extent of 360 sq.yds of Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam with assessment No. 100002/50465 for the purpose of road widening on 10-3-2008 and threatening to demolish and dispossess him for the said purpose without following the due process of law under Sec. 146 of the H MC Act or under the Land Acquisition act by paying the market value for the site and building as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent not to demolish my building and dispossess him from his property except under due process of law referred to above or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : O R D E R: In this case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent- Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation has been seeking to acquire land for the purpose of laying or widening the road existing, without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the respondent-Corporation has been offering meager amounts as compensation for the land sought to be taken possession of by them. It is further asserted that the value offered by the Corporation is, in fact, less than the value prevailing for the land as also the value fixed by the revenue establishment of the State Government and, hence, the petitioner is not interested in agreeing to receive the compensation offered by the respondent-Corporation and deliver possession of the land. It is needless to observe that the Municipal Corporation cannot take possession of the property owned by the citizens without recourse to law. The respondents are, therefore, directed to follow the procedure laid down in the Land Acquisition Act and acquire the land in question and without adopting such a procedure they should not insist upon the petitioner to part with the possession of the land. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. _________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Dated 14th March, 2008 vrn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Tahsildar, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam (Rural) 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}