IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5136 of 2008 Between: Kapuganti Venkata Swamy S/o.Venkata Ratnam R/o.38-40-85 Main Road Marripalem Vizag ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Of A.P Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Revenue(L.A) Dept Secretariat,Saifabad Hyd 2 State Of A.P Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department,Secretariat,Saifabad Hyd 3 G.H.M.C Rep.by its Commissioner Visakhapatnam Dist .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in making a portion of the petitioner building property bearing assessment No.69653 and House No.38-40-85 situated adjoining Bowdara Road leading from Vepagunta to Manorama Theater centre in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits for road widening as illegal irregular highjhanded violative of principles of natural justice provisions of Hyd Municipal Corporation Act as made applicable to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and rules framed there under and offends articles 14,21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish any protion of the said building its compound wall and site and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: In [aphc1]this case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation has been seeking to acquire [aphc2]land for the purpose of laying or widening the road existing, without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the respondent-Corporation has been offering meager amounts as compensation for the land sought to be taken possession of by them. It is further asserted that the value offered by the Corporation is, in fact, less than the value prevailing for the land as also the value fixed by the revenue establishment of the State Government and, hence, the petitioner is not interested in agreeing to receive the compensation offered by the respondent-Corporation and deliver possession of the land. It is needless to observe that the Municipal Corporation cannot take possession of the property owned by the citizens without recourse to law. The respondents are, therefore, directed to follow the procedure laid down in the Land Acquisition Act and acquire the land in question and without adopting such a procedure it should not insist upon the petitioner to part with the possession of the land. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. ______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. Dt.11-03-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} [aphc1] [aphc2]