IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 19549 of 2003 Between: G. Babu Rao, S/o Late Sri Narayana Murthy R/o. Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Gajuwaka Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Asst. Town Planning Officer, Gajuwaka Municipality, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Superintendent, R & B Department, Visakhapatnam. 4 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4: The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19549 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in demolishing part of the premises bearing No.10-8-56 belonging to the petitioner and further proposing to demolish a portion thereof and other structures situated in Sy.No.49/2 of Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, without following due process of law, as illegal and unconstitutional. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the purpose of widening of road, the respondents, without following due procedure of issuing a prior notice to the petitioner, have demolished a portion of the property allegedly belonging to him and later the petitioner got the same assessed by a Government approved valuer, who determined the loss to a tune of Rs.12,11,500/-. It is the further case of the petitioner that in order to widen the existing road, the respondents are seeking to further demolish his properties, without following due process of law by initiating provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). As the respondents have not controverted the averments contained in the affidavit, it is reasonable to presume that they are seeking to interfere with the properties of the petitioner for the purpose of widening of road without following due process of law. The law is well settled that the State or its instrumentalities cannot deprive its subjects of the properties belonging to them without acquiring the same under the provisions of the Act. If the properties belong to the petitioner, as averred by him, he cannot be evicted from the properties or the same acquired without initiation of the land acquisition proceedings and following the procedure laid down under the Act. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by restraining the respondents from interfering with the properties of the petitioner without following due process of law. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 26.02.2009 v v