THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 4460 OF 2006 Dated: 22.10.2010 Between: Kalla Venkat Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 4460 OF 2006 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent-Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the property bearing survey No.19/3 at Kothavenkojipalem, Visakhapatnam Town and District without following due process of law, is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his mother Smt.Kalla Achayamma filed a declaration in C.C.No.9/6(1)/6169/76 B2 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the ULC Act’). After due enquiry, vide proceedings dated 06.11.1978, the petitioner was allowed to retain an extent of 1500 sq.mtrs in survey Nos.4P, 3/11P and 19/3P. Thereafter, a final order was passed on 30.01.1982, in pursuance of which the surplus land was handed over to the 1st respondent and the petitioner continued in possession of the retainable land. Alleging that the staff of the 1st respondent have been attempting to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the retainable land situated in survey No.19/3 and also attempted to erect a board, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the highhanded action of the 1st respondent, is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that an extent of Ac.295.86 cents situated in Muvvalavanipalem Township was acquired for the purpose of VUDA and an award was also passed in respect of the land in survey No.14/80, dated 13.10.1980. However, the fact that the petitioner had surrendered the surplus land has not been disputed. As could be seen, the land in question is situated in survey No.19/3. Even according to the respondents, the award was passed after the proceedings of the Special Officer under the ULC Act, dated 06.11.1978. Thus, it is apparent that the retainable land in possession of the petitioner is entirely different from the land acquired invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of VUDA under IUDP Scheme. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land situated in survey No.19/3 without following due process of law. No costs. ___________ Date: 22.10.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd