IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27009 of 2008 Between: 1 Kona Ramesh Kumar S/o. Kona Sridhar R/o. F3, Park Line Apartment, Beach Road, East Point Colony, Visakhapatnam - 17. 2 Kona Sri Sandya W/o. Ramesh Kumar R/o. F3, Park Line Apartment, Beach Road, East Point Colony, Visakhapatnam - 17. 3 Annavarapu Madhavi Mohan W/o. Murali Mohan Rao R/o. F3, Park Line Apartment, Beach Road, East Point Colony, Visakhapatnam - 17. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector Visakhapatnam. 2 The Tahsildar Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam. 3 The Executive Engineer Zilla Parishad Visakhapatnam. 4 Aripuri Raja S/o. not known to the Petitioners R/o. Vepagunta, Visakhapatnam. .....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 o to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioners situated in R.S.No. 117/8 and 117/9 of Tunglam Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam to an extent of Ac.0-60 cents declaring the action of the respondents in entering into the petitioners' property to construct a building is violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and is arbitrary and high handed. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI S.V.R.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27009 of 2008 ORDER: The three petitioners are residents of Visakhapatnam. They allegedly purchased Ac.0.47 cents in R.S.No.117/8 and Ac.0.13 cents in R.S.No.117/9 situated at Tunglam Village from Gopisetti Appa Rao under document No.3472/2006. They also state that necessary permission under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, was also obtained by the vendor. Be that as it is, petitioners allege that on 05.12.2008 respondent Nos.3 and 4 started digging pits for the purpose of construction. Statedly, second petitioner issued telegrams to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to stop construction and not to interfere with possession without due process of law, in vain. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate declaration and direction. The matter was initially listed on 11.12.2008. To enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader to get instructions, the matter was adjourned. After getting instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that second respondent is not interfering with the possession or property rights, and that he is conducting enquiry into the allegation that third respondent is digging the pits. From these, it becomes clear that the writ petition is filed making allegation against respondent Nos.3 and 4. The affidavit is vague as to which work is being taken up and whether there is any sanction for such work. This Court comprehends that when the property is utilized for public purpose, unless and until a notice is given to the person, he cannot be expected to know the purpose for which the building is to be constructed. It does not, however, mean that petitioners can rush to this Court without making enquiries. Except stating that they issued telegrams to respondent Nos.1 to 3, it appears, they have not taken any action. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, there cannot be any dispute that a citizen cannot be deprived of his property unless due process of law is followed as per Article 300A of the Constitution of India. This is, however, subject to power of eminent domain and in urgent cases District Collector can even take possession without notice. Whatever be the nature of purpose for which the land is used, unless and until the petitioners are given notice and due process of law is followed, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed. The Writ Petition, with the above observation, is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 12.12.2008 vs To 1 The District Collector Visakhapatnam. 2 The Tahsildar Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam. 3 The Executive Engineer Zilla Parishad Visakhapatnam. 4 2CCs to G.P For Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ}