IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 1733 of 2002 BETWEEN: 1 Smt K. Lakshmi W/o K.Krishna, R/o Pochampally Nalgonda District. 2 Sri Rudra Rajeswar S/o R. Yadagiri, R/o Pochampally Nalgonda District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner, L.B. Nagar, Municipality Ranga Reddy District. 2 Smt. Lankala Ansuyamma, W/o Narasimha Reddy, Rep. by its GPA Holder Smt. C. Kamalamma, W/o Krishna Reddy, aged about 60 years, R/o 16-10-234/1, Municipal Colony Old Malakpet, Hyderabad-36 ...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 issue a Writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proposed action of the 1st Respondent without conducting an enquiry on the application of the 2nd Respondent dated: 17-9- 2001, is trying to demolish the schedule 'B' property in Sy. No. 7/D (Old Sy. No. 7) Saroornagar Village L.B. Nagar Municipality, R.R. District as illegal and arbitrary besides against the rules of Municipality and consequently and consequently direct the 1st Respondent not to initiate any proceedings on the said property. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.K. MALLESHWARI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.VIJAYA SHEKAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: None appears. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that one Smt. Nadella Kranti Kumari was the owner of the open land admeasuring 556 sq. yards in Sy.No.7/A (Old Sy.No.7) situated at Moyya Nagar of Saroornagar Village, Ranga Reddy District. The said land was divided into four bits and a portion of the said land was sold in favour of the petitioners and thereafter the petitioners made an application for sanction of construction of a house and the Municipal Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Municipality vide proceedings dated 09.04.2001 granted sanction for construction of house. Thereafter, the first respondent without conducting an enquiry on an application said to have been filed by the second respondent attempted to demolish the property sold to the petitioners. 3. I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the right, title and unauthorized constructions of the petitioners. However, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, the first respondent cannot demolish the house and dispossess the petitioners. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent is directed not to dispossess the petitioners and not to demolish any structures said to have been constructed by the petitioners without following due process of law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 25, 2008 DSK