HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7532 of 2002 Date : 11.09.2009 Between : Simhadri Varalakshmi. …..Petitioner And Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry, rep. by its Special Officer- cum-Commissioner. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7532 of 2002 ORDER : The petitioner, who is the owner of the premises bearing No. 29-14-53, situated at Laxmivarapupeta in Rajahmundry of East Godavari District, has filed this writ petition, seeking to declare the action of respondents in taking steps for demolition of the structures in the aforesaid premises, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her late husband, by name Sri Ramachandra Chary, was the owner of the house bearing No. 29-14-53, situated at Laxmivarapupeta in Rajahmundry. It is stated that the said house was constructed about eight years prior to filing of the writ petition, and after the death of the petitioner's husband, she has been in continuous possession of the property as owner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that for the purpose of road widening, respondents have visited their site on 06.04.2002 and marked certain structures of the petitioner for demolition. It is stated that as much as the marked portions are their own properties, respondents have no authority either to mark the said portions or to demolish the same for the purpose of road widening. In the affidavit, it is also stated that the owner of the site which is opposite to the house of the petitioner, has encroached on to the road portion, but without computing the said encroachment, respondents are taking steps to widen the road by demolishing the structures belonging to the petitioner, which are constructed within the land owned by the petitioner. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the Commissioner of the respondent-Corporation. In the counter affidavit, while admitting that markings were made by the staff of the respondent-Corporation on certain structures at Laxmivarapupeta for the purpose of road widening, it is stated that the Late husband of the petitioner has constructed the building, covering the site, which was surrendered to the then Municipality for the purpose of road widening. A reference is also made to the proceedings, taken up under the provisions of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, and it is stated that the Municipality has already issued notice under Section 228(1) of the Act, and after service of the same on the Late husband of the petitioner, subsequent orders were issued on 02.09.1994, confirming the provisional order, in exercise of powers under Section 228(3) of the said Act. It is submitted that as much as the petitioner has encroached on the land, which was surrendered to the Municipality by her Late husband, and constructions are made, steps are rightly being taken for demolishing the same. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation. 5. While it is the case of the petitioner that construction of the house property was within their own land, but however, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Late husband of the petitioner has surrendered the land to an extent of 5.04 square metres, to the Municipality on 20.06.1994, by executing a deed to that effect on Rs.50/- non-judicial stamp paper. Further, a reference is also made to the notice issued under the provisions of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, for removal of the un- authorised constructions. Be that as it may. But, after issuing the notice in the name of the Late husband of the petitioner, the respondent-Municipality is converted into Corporation, and presently, is governed by the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, as made applicable to the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation. There are provisions akin to that of Municipalities Act, 1965, in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, for removal of un-authorised constructions. Though it is the case of the respondents that the constructions are made by encroaching into the land which is already surrendered, but, as admittedly in the earlier proceedings initiated under the provisions of the A.P.Municipalities Act, notices were served on the Late husband of the petitioner, and in view of the fact that the Municipality has now been converted into Corporation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents not to take any steps for demolition of the constructions made by the petitioner, without resorting to the procedure as contemplated under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, as applicable to the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation. However, it is made clear that if there is any encroachment and constructions are made by the petitioner on the land which is surrendered to the erstwhile Municipality, it is open to the respondent-Corporation to issue notice, indicating the details of such encroachment and illegal constructions, and to take steps in accordance with law. 6. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th September 2009 ajr