THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU Writ Petition No.313 of 2004 ORDER: 1 The case of the petitioners is that their father was the owner of the property bearing municipal numbers 17-3-545 to 553 and mulgi numbers 17-3-554 to 556, 17-3-371 and 17-3-371 and 371/1 and also the premises bearing No.17-3-371/2 admeasuring 814 sq. Yards and that property bearing No.17-3-371/3 and a portion of premises bearing No.17-3-555 was purchased by Government of Andhra Pradesh from their father under registered sale deed, and that after the death of their father they became entitled to the remaining property of their father and that respondents 1 and 2 suddenly came and demolished a portion of the property bearing No.17-3-553/1, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.285 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the 2nd Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 05.08.2003 and so by this petition they are seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to pay just compensation to them for demolition of their property. 2 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that inasmuch as the petitioners inherited the property bearing No.17-3- 553/1 from their father after his death and filed O.S.No.285 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the 2nd Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from parting with the possession of the said property in favour of third parties, and as respondents 1 and 2 high handedly demolished a portion of the premises without any notice, petitioners are entitled to compensation for that high handed act of respondents 1 and 2. 3 Counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent denying knowledge of the ownership of the petitioners and contending that the tenants of the premises who were given authority to raise structures surrendered the property for road widening. 4 There is no representation on behalf of the respondents on 12.10.2007 when the case is posted for hearing and today also, though the case is listed under the caption ‘for orders’. 5 The averments in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, prima facie establish the ownership of the petitioners over the premises bearing No.17-3-553/1. At the time of admission the learned Judge who admitted the Writ Petition had on 07.01.2004, in WPMP No.427 of 2004 directed the respondents not to further demolish the property of the petitioners without following due procedure. If the petitioners are not the owners of the premises in question, respondents would have filed a petition to vacate the interim order on the ground that petitioners are not the owners thereof. Since no application for vacating the stay is filed, it can be taken that respondents admit that petitioners are the owners of the premises bearing No.17-3-553/1, which was demolished in part on 05.08.2003. 6 No documents are produced by the respondents in support of the contentions raised in the counter affidavit. So it has to be taken that the demolition was without notice. As respondents demolished the structure of the petitioners without issuing any notice and without following the procedure prescribed in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, respondents are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the petitioners for their high handed act of demolition of the premises of the petitioners, and also get the value of the portion of the property demolished appraised through a qualified engineer and pay that amount determined by the engineer as compensation to the petitioners with interest at 12% p.a. from 05.08.2003 up to date of payment within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioners are entitled to costs of the petition. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. -------------------------------- Justice C.Y.Somayajulu 30.10.2007 kvsn