IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 6387 of 2008 Between: Smt.Budumuru Hymavathi W/o.B.V.R.Murthy R/o.Door No. 37-1-7, Sankurupeta, ITI Junction, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Commissioner. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent corporation in trying to demolish the structures of the petitioner's house bearing No. 37-1-7, T.S.No.38, Ward No. 41 (Assessment No. 69358) situated at L.Kaparada, Visakhapatnam, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the structures belonging to the petitioner without due process of law, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M. Viswanadham Counsel for the Respondent : Sri N. Ranga Reddy The Court made the following O R D E R: In this[aphc1] case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation has been seeking to acquire her residential house[aphc2] for the purpose of 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 house 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 house 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 house. It is needless to observe that the Municipal Corporation cannot take possession of the property owned by the citizens without recourse to law. The respondent is, therefore, directed to follow the procedure laid down in the Land Acquisition Act and acquire the house in question and without adopting such a procedure, it should not insist upon the petitioners to part with the possession of the house. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 26th March 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} [aphc1] [aphc2]