IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3659 of 2009 Between: P. Kondamma W/o. P. Premsai Babu R/o. Bosu Sibiram Street, Powerpet, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation rep. by its Commissioner, 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 to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession of the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.17/7 (old Sy.No.13) Ward No.1, Arilova Sector IV, Chinnagadili Village, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the second respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring to 999 Sq. Yards situated in Sy.No.17/7 (old Sy.No.13) Ward No.1, Arilova Sector IV, Chinnagadili Village, Visakhapatnam District without following due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.3659 of 2009 Order: The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of 999 sq.yards situated in Survey No.17/7 (old Survey No.13) of Ward No.1, Arilova Sector IV, Alluri Seetharamaraju Nagar, by way of gift deed, dated 22.12.2008. Her grievance is that the second respondent, without following due process of law, is trying to interfere with her possession over the land in question and dispossess her therefrom. Hence, the present writ petition. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for GVMC appearing for the second respondent submitted that the respondent- Corporation will not acquire the land in question, without following due process of law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for GVMC appearing for the second respondent. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for GVMC appearing for the second respondent, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question, without following due process of law. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 25.02.2009 VGB