HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.5365 of 2005 Date: December 2, 2009 Between: Sri Sri Pothuluru Veerabrahmendra Swamy Math, Represented by its Trustee Chatlapalli Brahmaiah, S/o.Venkatasubbaiah, aged about 48 years, V.R. College Centre, Nellore town, Nellore District. … Petitioner And The Special Officer and District Collector, Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, Nellore District, and another. … Respondents Order: The petitioner, a religious Math, represented by its managing trustee, seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying compensation for the illegal demolition of shops constructed by it, in the process of road widening by the Municipal Corporation of Nellore, as illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that one Sri Chetlapalli Venkata Subbaiah founded the petitioner-math and after his death his sons have been managing the affairs of the mutt. It is the grievance of the petitioner that on the Northern and Western side of the math, shops were constructed by the math and the same were demolished illegally by the respondents, without following due process of law; as such, compensation is to be paid to it. A counter affidavit is filed by the Commissioner, Nellore Municipality, categorically denying the allegation of the petitioner that shops have been demolished on the Northern and Western side of the math, without issuing notice. It is stated that there were no permanent structures and there was only one bunk and two A.C. sheet pendals, which were constructed by encroaching on the road margin and the same were removed. The allegation of the petitioner that the land of the petitioner was taken up for road widening is specifically denied in the counter affidavit and it is stated that the petitioner, by putting up temporary structures unauthorizedly, is collecting rents from the occupants. Though counter affidavit is filed in the month of October, 2008, no reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner denying the averments made in the counter affidavit. While it is the case of the petitioner that shops were constructed in the land owned by it and they were illegally removed by the respondents, but, as stated in the counter affidavit, it is the case of the respondents that there were no permanent structures and the temporary structures which were removed for the purpose of road widening were illegally constructed by the petitioner on the road margin. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, it appears, there is a dispute with regard to title and possession of the land where the alleged structures were constructed. Unless evidence is recorded on the claim of the petitioner, it is not possible for this court to order for payment of compensation merely based on the allegation of the petitioner, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, keeping open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and claim compensation by putting forth its case. No order as to costs. ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 2, 2009 MRR