IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8849 of 2007 Between: Chunduri Seshagiri Rao S/o.Subbaraya Gupta Kotla Bazar, near T.T.M.Building, Chirala ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of AP., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal & Urban Development Dept., secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Asst.Engineer, Road & Buildings, Depot,Chirala Prakasam District 3 The Commissioner, Chirala Municipality, Chirala Prakasam District 4 Town Planning officer, Chirala Municipality, Chirala .....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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in marking a portion of building properties belonging to the petitioner situated in D.No.18-1-36 and assessment No.1032007716 up to 60 feet in Kotla Bazar n e a r T.T.M.Building, Chirala Municipal limits with a direction to demolish the same for road widening is illegal, irregular highhanded, violative of principles of natural justice provision of AP Municipalities Act and rules framed there under and oﬀends articles 14,21 and 300 A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish up to 60 feet portion of the said building its compound wall and site. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.MADHAVI KAMBHAMPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioner assailing the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess him from the premises bearing D.No.18-1-36 without following the due process of law. The petitioner claims that he is absolute owner and possessor of the premises bearing D.No.18-1-36 with Assessment No.1032007716 o f Chirala Municipality. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that the respondents are contemplating to demolish his house in the process of road widening without following the due process of law. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration received notice on behalf of R1, learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings received notice on behalf of R2 and Smt G.Jhansi, learned standing counsel of Chirala Municipality received notice on behalf of R3 and R4. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of R3 and R4 submits that the respondents will follow due process of law in the event the premises owned by the petitioner is required to be demolished for road widening. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondents to follow due process of law in the event the premises owned by the petitioner is required to be demolished in the process of road widening. No costs. _________ 31-10-2008 rkk