THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22804 of 2010 Date: 29.03.2011 Between: Naamala Krishnamurthy … Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22804 of 2010 ORDER : Heard Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Smt. V. Preethi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) and with the consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in attempting to forcibly dispossess and demolish the structures said to be existing in an extent of 300 square yards of land in Sy.No.18/1, bearing Door No.15-44/A of VUDA Nagar-1, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, without following the due process of law, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 300 square yards of land in Sy.No1.8/1, bearing Door No.15-44/A of VUDA Nagar-1, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, over a period of more than 40 years. It is stated the said house property is also assessed to property tax. While so, claiming that it is a Government land, proceedings were initiated by instituting a case in L.G.C.No.14 of 1994 before the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and it appears that the said case was dismissed for default. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have visited the premises and taking steps to dispossess him high-handedly from the said premises without following the due process of law. Since the respondents are bent upon to dispossess him from the said premises, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. There does not appear to be any dispute that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject premises. The 2nd respondent, having initiated proceedings by instituting a Land Grabbing Case for eviction of the petitioner from the said premises, does not appear to have pursued the said proceedings. In view of the indisputable possession of the petitioner on the subject premises, the respondents cannot resort to high-handedly dispossess him from the subject premises by taking the law into their own hands. It is well settled that even an encroacher cannot be removed except in accordance with the law. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from the subject premises except by following the due process of law. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 29.03.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22804 of 2010 29.03.2011 (Msr)