IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 11991 of 2001 Between: Mandadapu Adinarayana S/o.Ankalaiah R/o.Guntupalli ,Gopavaram Village Yerrupalem Mandal Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist.Collector Khammam Dist , Khammam. 2 Superintending Engineer Panchayat Raj Khammam Dist , Khammam. 3 Executive Engineer Panchayat Raj ,Khammam Dist. Khammam. 4 Dy.Executive Engineer Panchayat Raj , Madhira Khammam Dist. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to May be pleased to issue a writ , order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents to demolishing the building Door No.2-7 situated at Guntupalli Gopavaram Village ,Yerrupalem Mandal , Khammam District as highly illegal , arbitrary , unjust and improper and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the same without following due process of law and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BADANA.BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing the building bearing D.No.2-7, situated at Guntupalli Gopavaram Village, Yerrupalem Mandal, Khammam District, as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice, and consequently to direct the respondents not to demolish the same without following due process of law. According to the petitioner he is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing D.No.2-7 situated at Guntupalli Gopavaram Village, Yerrupalem Mandal, Khammam District constructed by his ancestors. That being so, surprisingly, on 11-06- 2001, the staff of the fourth respondent came to the house, threatened and insisted the petitioner to vacate the house stating that they have decided to demolish the house for the purpose of road widening. When the petitioner insisted to serve the order of the respondents he was informed that the action is being initiated only on the oral instructions of respondents 1 to 3. Further the respondents forced him to vacate the house without any prior notice or order from the competent authority. Hence the present writ petition. In the counter filed by respondent No. 4, it is stated that neither the respondents nor their staff visited the house of the petitioner on 11.06.2004 nor there was any proposal to widen the road as claimed by the petitioner. In fact the road was upgraded on NABARD assistance programme without disturbing the house of the petitioner as such the contention of the petitioner that the respondents proposed to widen the road and directed him to vacate the house is false and baseless. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition and the same is liable to be closed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs. ________________ (C.V.RAMULU, J.) 11th June, 2009 Js/Yvl.