THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.28084 of 2008 BETWEEN: 1. Sathi Adi Vishnu and another PETITIONERS And 1. District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C. Ramachandra Raju Counsel for the respondents : G.P. for R & B. The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents proposing to demolish the structures situated in R.S.No.479/4 & 5 of Samsragudem Gram Panchayat, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District, without following due process of law and for payment of compensation in respect of the plot already taken over by the respondents. The 1st petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of 1092 sq. yds., and the 2nd petitioner is the owner of an extent of 478 ½ sq. yds., of land situated in Rs.No.479/4 & 5 of Samsragudem Gram Panchayat, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District. Both the sites comprise a single plot. A room has been constructed on the said site and the petitioners are using it as a godown for storing H.P. Gas. It is stated that the respondents 2 to 4 while widening the road encroached into the said site and took over about 300 sq. yds in the name of public purpose even without acquiring the same in accordance with law. The petitioners complain that the respondents have not even paid compensation. It is further stated that notwithstanding taking over of land in the said manner, the respondents have again taken steps for taking over the remaining portion of land without acquiring the same in accordance with law. In order to accomplish the same, it is alleged that the officials of the Roads and Buildings Department visited the site in the month of November, 2008 and started marking the compound wall around the said site. As the respondents are persistent in taking away the land even without having regard to the provisions of law, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. The 4th respondent, namely, the Assistant Engineer, R & B, Nidadavolu, West Godavari District, has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that a total extent of 528 sq. yards comprising an extent of 384 sq. yds. in R.S.No.479/4A and 144 sq. yds. in R.S.No.479/5A including 287 sq. yds., was already taken over for widening the road junction. Out of the said extent, the petitioners are concerned with an extent of 287 sq. yds., in R.S.No.479/4A. It is further stated that the department was constrained to take over the said land in the public interest in order to avoid accidents in the said area. The 4th respondent has admitted that compensation is yet to be paid in respect of the said land. It is further stated that in so far as the remaining land of which the petitioner has made complaint, no demolition is being undertaken by the department and acquisition proposals are still under consideration. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court on mere apprehension and the writ petition is premature. From the aforesaid facts it is evident that the respondents have taken over at least some extent of land which according to the petitioner is 300 sq. yds. whereas according to the 4th respondent the extent is 287 sq. yds. It is also evident that there is a proposal for further widening of the road and in that regard proposals have been submitted for acquiring the remaining area of the land. Admittedly, the petitioners are the owners of the said land. That being so, they cannot be deprived of the said land except by due process of law, which include payment of compensation in respect of the land already taken over and due notification in respect of the remaining land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents cannot seek to avoid either of the requirements. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as follows. 1. The respondents shall take steps for granting compensation in respect of the land already taken over; and 2. The respondents are restrained from taking over the remaining land and dispossess the petitioners, except by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 9th February, 2011 Js.