IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5417 of 2008 Between: Smt.Kanchipati Varalakshmi, W/o.Kanchipati Ramu, female,Hindu, R/o.D.No.11-230, Krishna Nagar, Vepagunta, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in attempting to demolish petitioner's building to a depth of 25 feet and to a length of 42 feet out of an extent of 352 sq.yds bearing D.No.11-230 situated in Krishna Nagar, Vepagunta Visakhapatnam for the purpose of road widening on 03-03-2008 and threatening to demolish and dispossess her for the said purpose without following the due process of law under Sec.146 of the H.M.C.Act or under the Land acquisition Act by paying the market value for the site and building as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent not to demolish her building and dispossess her from her property except under due process of law referred to above or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.5417 OF 2008 O R D E R: In this case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent- Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation has been seeking to acquire land for the purpose of laying or widening the road existing, without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the respondent- Corporation has been offering meager amounts as compensation for the land sought to be taken possession of by them. It is further asserted that the value offered by the Corporation is, in fact, less than the value prevailing for the land as also the value fixed by the revenue establishment of the State Government and, hence, the petitioner is not interested in agreeing to receive the compensation offered by the respondent-Corporation and deliver possession of the land. It is needless to observe that the Municipal Corporation cannot take possession of the property owned by the citizens without recourse to law. The respondent is, therefore, directed to follow the procedure laid down in the Land Acquisition Act and acquire the land in question and without adopting such a procedure it should not insist upon the petitioner to part with the possession of the land. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 13th March, 2008 PNV To 1. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. 2.2CD copies