IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14581 of 2002 Between: 1 Chandanam Mallesham, S/o. Late Chandanam Chinna Bramhaiah. 3-39, Yellareddypet, Karimnagar District 2 Chandanam Lxminarayana, S/o. Late Chandanam Chinna Bramhaiah. 3-39, Yellareddypet, Karimnagar District .. PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Karimnagar District 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer,Yellareddipet, Karimnagar District. 3 The Gram Panchayat Yellareddypet, Rep. Person Incharge/Executive Officer, Yellareddypet Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.H.PRASAD Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent No.3: None appeared 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 demolishing the house of the petitioners bearing Gram Panchayat No.3-39 of Yellareddypet Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District, without following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the record. No one appeared for respondent No.3. In their aﬃdavit, the petitioners averred that they are the absolute owners of house bearing Gram Panchayat No.3- 39 of Yellareddypet Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District, which was constructed 27 years back by their late father and they have been in possession of the said house. On 25-11- 2000, respondent No.3 issued notice in the names of Chandanam Chinna Bramhaiah and his wife, the father and mother respectively of the petitioners, calling upon them to remove the house which is causing obstruction to the existing road, which is of the width of 45 feet as against the sanctioned width of 66 feet, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioners submitted their representation on 25-02-2001 to respondent No.1, wherein they stated that their father constructed the said house during his lifetime; that they are not left with any other property and that they are prepared to voluntarily remove the structure if alternative house site is provided to them by respondent No.1 or in the alternative to provide them permanent accommodation by allotting a vacant Government quarter. As there was no response from the respondents to the said request, the petitioners ﬁled the present writ petition apprehending demolition of the structure. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.3, it is, inter alia, admitted that house bearing No.3-39 belongs to the petitioners. It is further stated that the impugned notice was issued to widen the existing 45 feet road and that all other house owners voluntarily agreed to remove the structures and in pursuance of the same, 70 houses were demolished for widening the road. It is further stated that under IAY scheme for the year 2002-2003, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was proposed to be given in the name of Smt Ch Shankaramma, the wife of petitioner No.1, and the said proposals were already submitted to the District Manager, Housing, Karimnagar for sanction of the said amount. It is not clear from the pleadings of the parties as to whether the land on which the structure, which is proposed to be removed, was constructed belongs to the family of the petitioners or not. If the land on which the said structure is in existence is a private land belonging to the petitioners, the impugned notice is wholly illegal, because the property of a citizen cannot be acquired by the State or its instrumentalities except by following due process of law. Unless the owner of the land voluntarily surrenders the property, it is incumbent upon the State to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). If, on the other hand, the land belongs to the Government, the petitioners cannot resist removal of the structures raised unauthorizedly on such land. In the absence of mentioning of details regarding the nature of the land, it is not possible for this Court to give a specific finding with respect thereto. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms. (i) Within four (4) weeks from today, the petitioners shall make a representation to respondent No.3 by giving necessary details regarding their right over the land on which the house is in existence. The petitioners shall also ﬁle relevant documents in support of their claim of ownership. (ii) On receipt of the said representation, respondent No.3 shall examine the same and take appropriate decision. If it is found that the land belongs to the petitioners, respondent No.3 shall not be entitled to interfere with the property either without the consent of the petitioners or without initiating proceedings under the Act for acquiring the said property. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th November, 2008 vrn