IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 6721 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt.G.achamamba W/o.G.Satyanarayana Reddy, R/o.7-55, Sathupally, Khammam District. 2 G.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Satyanarayana Reddy, R/o.7-55, Sathupally, Khammam District. 3 G.Murali, S/o.Satyanarayana Reddy, R/o.7-55, Sathupally, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Mandal Revenue Officer Santhupally Mandal, Sathupally, Khammam District. 2 The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District. 3 The Executive Engineer, (R&B) Division, Khammam, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more in thenatur of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps to demolist the building of the petiinerssituated in sy.No.145/E of Sathupally bearing H.No.7-55 allegedly for the purpose of road widening without acquiring thesame as per law a illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art, 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents not to interfere wiht the possession andinjoyment ofthe buildng bearing H.No.7-55 situated in Sy.No.145/E, at Sathupally, Khammam District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SUDHIR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 6721 of 2008 02-06-2009 Oral Order: The writ petition is filed on an apprehension that the respondents would demolish the building of the petitioners in survey No. 145-E, Sathupally village and Mandal, Khammam District bearing house No. 7-55 for the purposes of road widening. The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have filed counter affidavits. The 1st respondent states that the proceedings against the petitioners were initiated under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and a notice issued under Section 7 thereof on 08-12-2006 and a reply was also received from the petitioners on 14-12-2006 and final orders are under process. The 3rd respondent’s counter states that while houses adjacent to the petitioners have been demolished, the respondents would not proceed against the property of the petitioners, except by following due process of law. In paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent specifically pleads that the writ petition is filed on mere apprehension. The counter was filed on 29-04-2008 and there is no rebuttal of these assertions by the petitioners. In the circumstances, there is no basis for the apprehension for which the writ petition is filed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as ‘infructuous’. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 02-06-2009 Pvks