IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.6478 of 2002 Dated:- 08th September, 2009 Between: Sri Rajendra Kumar Kimtee, S/o.Late Sri Sampatlal Kimtee, aged 61 years, Occ:Business, R/o. Hasmathgunj, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad And others …Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By the Collector, Hyderabad. And others …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.6478 of 2002 ORDER: Three petitioners are statedly partners of M/s.Pannalal Ramlal Kimtee and sons. The firm purchased about Acs.7.22 guntas in Survey No.129.44 together with bungalow No.8-2-686 and out houses, servant quarters (hereinafter referred to as petition schedule property) from Mr.Khursheed Jehan Verji, under registered sale deed dated 21.03.1968. After coming into force of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, partners of the firm – 12 in all – filed a declaration under the Act and firm was declared to be non-surplus holder. It is alleged that on 03.04.2002, respondents 2 and 3 visited the petition schedule property and started demolishing the old compound wall in spite of protests and requests by petitioners. Therefore, they filed instant writ petition on 05.04.2002, seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in highhandedly demolishing the compound wall as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential direction to respondents to reconstruct the compound wall, out houses and servant quarters. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 25.04.2002, directed respondents to conduct survey of T.S.No.14/1 & 14/2, after giving notice to both the parties and submit a report in this Court. Even after lapse of about seven years, respondents have not filed counter affidavit. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioners and perused the material annexed thereto, which would, prima facie, prove that petitioners are owners of the petition schedule property. The evidence by way of photographs placed before this Court would show that compound wall was demolished. Therefore, the cause of action cannot be doubted. When petitioners purchased land in the year 1968 and their possession was declared non-surplus under the provision of the Act, if any part of the land of petitioners is required for any public purpose like widening the road, respondents have to issue notice to petitioners and follow due process of law. The law abhors in highhanded demolition of compound wall. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of observing that unless and until respondents follow due process of law and initiate necessary action under the law, there would be no interference with enjoyment of property of petitioners or there can be demolition of their compound wall or other structures. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 08, 2009 Bvv