IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15928 of 2004 Between: 1 Chilamatturu Narayanamma, W/o.Late Venkatesulu, R/o.D.No.3-4-12, Hindupur, Ananthapur. 2 Saraswatamma, W/o.Kuppaswami, R/o.D.No.3-4-12, Hindupur, Ananthapur. 3 Parvatamma, W/o. Shankar Babu, J.V.Street, Hindupur. 4 Suneetha, W/o.B.C.Sudhakar, D.No.3-16-1A, Old bus Stand, Hindupur, Ananthapur Dist. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Commissioner of Municipality, Hindupur, Ananthapur Dist. 2 C.V. Sainath, S/o. late Sri Venkatesulu, D.No.413-83,S.B.I.Colony, Hindupur. 3 C. Ramakrishna, S/o.Late C.Venkatesulu, D.No.17-7-6, Hindupur. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in excavating the land laying a drainage channel in out lands in survey Nos.355-2A, 360-1, 363-3, 363-4, 363-5, 363-6, 364-5, of Hindupur Municipality, Ananthapur District without following the due process of law as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently directing the first respondent not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the above lands by excavating the land for the purpose of laying a drainage channel except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Counsel for petitioners: Mr. A. Hanumantha Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Mr. S.I. Newton The Court made the following Order: Petitioners, who claim to be the owners and possessors of different extents of land in Sy.Nos.360-2, 363-4, 363-1, 363-3, 364-5, 363-5, 363-6 and 355-2A of Hindupur Municipality, Ananthapur District, seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-Municipality in seeking to lay a drainage channel through their lands, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of the aforementioned lands. It is their case that the first respondent-Municipality is taking steps for excavation of their lands, for the purpose of laying a drainage channel, without notifying the same for acquisition in accordance with law. 3. At the stage of admission, this court, by order dated 07-09-2004, directed the respondents not to lay any drainage channel in the lands belonging to the petitioners without following due procedure prescribed by law. The said order has been extended by order dated 12-10-2004 and the same has continued all along. Though the writ petition if of the year 2004, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the allegations of the petitioners. 4. As much as it is stated that the petitioners are the owners of the lands in question and the said lands have not been notified for acquisition for any public purpose, taking into account the aforesaid interim orders of this court, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents not to dig/excavate the lands of the petitioners for laying a drainage channel or for any other public purpose, without acquiring the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or without obtaining their consent. No order as to costs. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. August 3, 2009 MRR ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP {JA}