IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4361 of 2008 Between: Appanna Panda S/o.late Gopinath Panda R/o.40-5-1, Tikkel Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Greater Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, Rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 City Planner, Greater Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....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 issue a Writ, or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing notice dated 18.02.2008 and putting in motion the process of demolition beginning with markings upon the structures of the house bearing Municipal No. 40-5-1, situated at Tikkel Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada belonging to the family of the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional; consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the writ petitioner and his family from the house site admeasuring 537 Sq. Yards, which has structures of house No.40-5-1, situated at Tikkel Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada after setting aside the notice dated 18.02.2008 with consequential effects and pass such order or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4361 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside Notification dated 18.02.2008 and to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in seeking to demolish the property of the petitioner, situated in house bearing Municipal No.40-5-1 of Tikkel Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada, as illegal. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.Aruna, learned counsel, representing Smt.G.Jhansi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the impugned notice shows that a vague and ambiguous allegation has been made that “some are claiming that there is encroachment of road site” on the petitioner’s premises. He submitted that despite orders dated 21.09.2000 and 17.12.2002 passed by this court in W.P.No.26734 of 1997 and Contempt Case No.1374 of 2002, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are seeking to interfere with the possession of the petitioner’s property, without following due process of law. He also submitted that the tenor of the impugned notice shows that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are bent upon demolishing the petitioner’s property on the purported ground that according to some undisclosed persons, the petitioner is encroaching the road site. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the notice, I am of the view that there is justification for the criticism of the learned counsel for the petitioner of the impugned notice. The expression “some are claiming” is too vague. Respondent No.2, being a statutory body, is expected to disclose the names of the persons who claim that the petitioner is in occupation of the road site. It is also expected to disclose the material on the basis of which it has arrived at such a prima facie conclusion. Before calling upon the petitioner to prove in the negative that he is not in occupation of the road site, it is the responsibility of respondent No.2 to be satisfied itself that the petitioner has encroached into road site. Respondent No.2 cannot violate the valuable property rights of the citizens in a whimsical manner. For the afore mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed not to interfere with the right and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property, without proper survey and being satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, that he is in occupation of the public property. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 29.02.2008 Dsr Note: Communicate the operative portion of Order by wire, at party’s costs. B/o Dsr.