IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17360 of 2008 Between: Mamidi Chinna Rao S/o. Late Appala Swamy R/o. Rebaka Gram Panchayat Anakapally Maneal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Anakapally, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Asst. Engineer Rural Water Supply Anakapally, Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Anakapally, Visakhapatnam District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for respondent No.1:AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent No.2: MR M.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for respondents 3 and 4: AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the staircase in front of the petitioner’s house situated in Rebaka Grampanchayat, Anakapally Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard Sri M.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 and the Contractor, who is entrusted with the laying of road in front of the house of the petitioner, tried to demolish the staircase, constructed by the petitioner on his land, at 11.00 p.m on 27-07-2008. He submitted that the staircase is situated on the land belonging to the petitioner and that the respondents have no power or authority to remove the same without following due process of law. Since the grievance of the petitioner is limited to the extent of the attempt to remove the staircase without following due process of law, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: 1. Respondent No.2 shall give a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show that the staircase is constructed on the land belonging to him. 2. After considering the explanation and material, if any, submitted by the petitioner, if respondent No.2 is satisfied that the staircase is constructed on the land belonging to the petitioner, he shall not interfere with the same without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or until he obtains the consent of the petitioner. 3. Conversely, if it is found that the land over which the staircase is constructed does not belong to the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall pass a reasoned order and serve the same on the petitioner before taking appropriate action As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.22555 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 11th August, 2008 Note: Issue C.C in three days vrn