IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20726 of 2003 Between : Pureddi Atchanna, S/o.P.Appanna, R/o.Butchirajupalem Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District 2 The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam 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 of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in Sy.No.31/2A2 in an extent of 1215 Sq.Mts.situated at Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam, and be pleased to direct the respondents to act in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.R.M.REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in seeking to interfere with his possession over the land admeasuring 1215 square metres, covered by Survey No.31/2A2 of Butchirajupalem village in Visakhapatnam District, as illegal. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that initially, he was the owner of land to an extent of 1598 square metres, situated in Survey No.31/2A2 of Butchirajupalem village in Visakhapatnam District. As the said land is in the urban area, he has filed a declaration in C.C.No.112 of 1976, and though orders are passed by the competent authority declaring that he is a non-surplus land owner, but his claim with regard to Survey No.31/2A2 was rejected on the ground that he has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the said land fell to his share in the family partition. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.509 of 1991, and pursuant to the orders of this Court, dated 1st August 1995, passed in the said writ petition, fresh inquiry was conducted and the land covered by Survey No.31/2A2 was computed to the hold of the petitioner. It is also stated that out of the 1598 square metres of land, the petitioner has given consent to part with 243 square metres, which was utilized by the R&B Department for road widening, and he did not make any claim for compensation, and that the balance land of 1215 square metres was handed over to him. 3. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation is taking steps for laying a road through his land, in the absence of any consent from him, and also without acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Separate counter affidavits are filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is categorically stated that there is a proposed 40 feet wide service road through the petitioner’s land, as per the town planning scheme, but however, no execution steps are taken up by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), for laying the said road. At the same time, in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.509 of 1991, the land was computed to petitioner’s holding, and the petitioner has given his consent for utilization of land to an extent of 243 square metres by the R&B Department for the purpose of road widening, and that he did not claim any compensation for the said land. 5. As much as this writ petition is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to 1215 square metres of land, after deducting the portion of land admeasuring 243 square metres, for which, he has given consent to R&B Department. Though it is stated by the learned counsel for petitioner that the 1st respondent- Municipal Corporation is bent upon to lay a road through his land without obtaining his consent, but, from the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is clear that though there is a 40 feet wide proposed road abutting the land of the petitioner, but so far, no execution proceedings are initiated by VUDA. As much as no execution proceedings are initiated so far by the VUDA, it appears that the petitioner has filed this writ petition on mere apprehension that he will be deprived of his land. 6. As much as it is admitted by the respondents that the proposed road will affect the rights of the petitioner over his land, it is directed that if further steps are to be taken to lay the road through the land of the petitioner, the said land can be taken for the purpose of construction of road, only by following due process of law. 7. Subject to above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th July 2009. ajr