THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.14710 of 2003 Date: 24.02.2011 Between : K. Bulli Gannayya Setti and others. … Petitioners and State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Director of Town Planning, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.14710 of 2003 ORDER : The petitioners, who are said to be the owners of houses situated at Road No.49-9, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, abutting the Bye-pass road, Rajahmundry, have filed this writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the possession of their respective premises without following due process of law, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioners claim to be the owners and residents of Door Nos.46-9-50, 46-9-51, 46-9-48, 46-9-44/3, 46-9-47, 46-9-45, 46-9-44/2, 46-9-53, 46-9-46, 46-9-44/1, 46-9-48 and 46-9-48A, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. There is an existing road No.1, called Bye-pass road, connecting National Highway No.5. The houses of the petitioners are said to be situated on either side of the said road. The width of the road is stated to be 50 feet. However, due to passage of time, the said road required widening and in that regard the 2nd respondent served notices on the petitioners asking them to be present before him for the purpose of obtaining their consent. It appears that the petitioners objected the said proposal by citing several reasons, including that the widening is not required and, at any rate, they cannot be evicted forcibly from the premises without following due process of law. However, since the 3rd respondent persisted to proceed with the widening of the road without heeding to their objections, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 3. Heard Sri M. Sivananda Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and also Sri S. Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3- Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry. 4. Though several grounds have been raised, during the course of arguments, the main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, so far the 2nd respondent has not initiated any proceedings either under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 to acquire the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of road widening and unless the procedure contemplated under law is followed, the 2nd respondent cannot dispossess or demolish the houses of the petitioners. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the owners and residents of the aforesaid premises. It is well settled that before taking over the private property of an individual, the authorities have to strictly adhere to the procedure contemplated under law. Even an encroacher cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law. The provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act provide such procedure before the 2nd respondent can proceed for acquiring the private properties of the petitioners for the purpose of widening of the road. 6. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners of the respective premises except in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the premises of the petitioners are required for the purpose of road widening, the 2nd respondent shall put the petitioners on notice and acquire their lands strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 24.02.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.14710 of 2003 24.02.2011 (Msr)