IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.29104 OF 2011 Date:31-10-2011 Between:- Cherukuri Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner And Mandapeta Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Mandapeta Town & Mandal, E.G. District and another … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.29104 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to demolish the petitioner’s building ‘Sri Sai Eye Hospital’ bearing H.No. 17-1-36, situated at 12th Ward, Mandapeta Town, East Godavari District, without following due process of law, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The brier facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid house bearing No.17-1-36. As he is an eye specialist, in order to establish an eye hospital, he purchased an extent of 183 square yards house site vide Registered Sale Deed, dated 17-11-2004, constructed the aforesaid building and running the hospital, viz., Sri Sai Eye Hospital. In the year 2006, the 1st respondent Municipality proposed to widen the road and tried to demolish the adjacent houses without giving any notice. Questioning the same, the aggrieved parties filed W.P. No.3761 of 2006, which was disposed of by this Court on 28-02-2006 directing the 1st respondent not to demolish the houses without initiating legal process. Thereafter, in the second week of October 2011, the 1st respondent put up an arrow mark on the part of house of the petitioner without giving any notice. Then, immediately, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent and requested him to follow the due process of law. But, on 27-10-2011, the staff of the 1st respondent along with police, came to the building of the petitioner and tried to demolish the structures high-handedly. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the 1st respondent has no authority to take possession of the land of the petitioner forcibly or to demolish the structures thereof, without following the due process of law and therefore, he prays to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the building. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that the 1st respondent will follow the due process of law for acquiring the land of the petitioner if any, for the purpose of widening of the road. 6. The Municipality has no authority to encroach into the land of the private persons. If they want to acquire the land for widening the road for the use of public, they have to follow the procedure prescribed under law. Unless the procedure prescribed under law is followed, the question of taking possession of the land or demolition of the building does not arise. 7. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow the due process of law for acquiring the land and structures thereon and take appropriate decision relating to the building bearing No.17-1-36, situated at 12th Ward, Mandapeta Town, East Godavari District. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J October 31, 2011. KTL