THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.12453 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners are the owners of premises bearing Door No.12- 5-65 and 66 Srikakulam. Building abuts the Srikakulam- Kalingapatnam road maintained by the R & B department. By the year 2007, the width of the road was 50 feet. Proposals were mooted by the R & B Department to widen it to 70 feet. However, on consideration of the representations made by the general public, the proposal was restricted to 60 feet. The petitioners submit that without issuing notices the officials of the Srikakulam Municiaplity-2nd respondent herein, and R & B department, the 3rd respondent herein, have demolished the premises to the extent of 24 ½ x 12 ½ feet, in addition to taking over vacant site admeasuring 7 ½ x 12 ½ feet. They contend that the indiscriminate demolition by the respondents has resulted in damage to the left over building to the extent of 20 feet, apart from damage to the drainage canal running in front of the building and disrupting of water and electricity supply. The tenants are said to have vacated the premises due to lack of facilities. The petitioners got issued a notice dated 03.11.2006 requiring the respondents to pay compensation for the damage suffered by them together with interest. This writ petition is filed stating that the respondents are not taking steps on the notice issued by them. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that the decision to widen the road was taken at a meeting in which the officials of various departments of the Government, general public, owners of the houses etc. participated. They denied the allegations of the petitioners, as to the damage to the premises or demolition of the premises. According to them, the owners of the buildings abutting the road have themselves removed the portion affected by widening. The 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that the portion affected in the widening of the road near the premises of the petitioners is only 1.75 metres in depth. Compensation is said to have been quantified at Rs.56,090/-. Heard Sri D.Ramalingaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent and learned Government Pleader for R & B. The petitioners assert that their property up to the depth of 34 ½ feet was affected and in addition to that building up to the depth of 20 feet was also damaged. They claim damages on account of the disruption of water and electricity supply and drainage connections. The respondents state that the width of the road existing at that point of time was 50 feet and steps were taken for widening it to 10 feet i.e. 5 feet on either side. The petitioners did not file any reply contradicting the version of the respondents. The record herein discloses that the property of the petitioners to the depth of 1.75 metres i.e. roughly 5 feet was affected. It is not clear as to whether any building existed in the affected portion or it was vacant site alone. These are the matters which need to be adjudicated by a proper forum where evidence can be adduced. This Court cannot adjudicate into such disputed questions of fact. The petitioner can receive the compensation that is determined by the respondents without prejudice to their rights to institute the proceedings before appropriate forum. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to accept the compensation of Rs.56,090/-, and pursue such remedies as are available to them before a concerned forum. In case the petitioners make application for payment of compensation, the respondents shall release the same within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount shall carry simple interest at 6% per annum, from the date on which widening was undertaken till the date of payment. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03.02.2011. GJ