IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28753 of 2008 Between: Kajabojula Sambaiah S/o.Late Rajaiah R/o.Choutparthi Village, Parkal Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Warangal Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Warangal. 2 The Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Warangal. .....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 to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to take away the possession of the petitioners land to an extent of Ac.0-18 Guntas in Sy.No. 573 (old), 581/2 (New) situated at Waddepalli, Warangal without following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and consequently direct the respondents to follow due process of law if the petitioners land is required for a public purpose and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.V.DURGA NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.VISVESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to take away the possession of the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.0-18 guntas in Sy.No.573 (old), 581/2 (New) situated at Waddepalli, Warangal, without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and consequently sought for a direction to the respondents to follow due process of law if the petitioner’s land is required for a public purpose. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question for the purpose of road widening. Heard both sides. When once it is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in question, in my considered view, the respondents shall not interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the land in question. Even if the same required for any public purpose, such as widening of roads etc., the same shall be done only in accordance with law. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question without following due process of law. No costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 29-12-2008 Note: C.C. by tomorrow. (Bo) Gsn.