THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.9461 of 2006 BETWEEN: 1. Somaraju Ram Manohar and another. PETITIONERS And 1. The Commissioner, Kothagudem Municipality, Kothagudem, Khammam District, and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C. Damodar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent, viz., the Commissioner, Kothagudem Municipality, in interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of their houses bearing Nos.4-4-144/6A and 4-4-144/6B situated at Viswanadha Colony Gajula Ragam Basthi Area, Kothagudem, Khammam District, without issuing any notice, as illegal. The petitioners claim that they purchased an extent of 1600 sq. yds., of plot under an unregistered sale deed dated 8.06.2002 from one Katta Srisailam through his GPA holder Katta Parameswara Rao. It is stated that the petitioners partitioned the said plot into two equal plots and constructed houses thereon. The said houses are stated to have been assessed to property tax and the petitioners have been paying the tax to the municipality. The petitioners alleged that on a complaint of the 2nd respondent, who is an adjacent plot owner, the 1st respondent along with staff wanted to demolish the house on 23.04.2006 highhandedly and without following the due procedure contemplated under the law. Apprehending that the 1st respondent would carry on demolition without due regard to the law, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. The 1st respondent in his counter has stated that the assessment numbers shown by the petitioners are not for the dwelling houses and the constructions made by them are unauthorized structures of A.C. Sheet roofed single rooms without door. The said unauthorized structures have been constructed in the open space earmarked for public purpose. It is also stated that the notice was served on the petitioners on 25.04.2006. It is therefore stated that it was proposed to demolish the unauthorized constructions only after due notice to the petitioners. Heard Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Shanthi Neelam, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. During the course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of the notice in Roc.No.8/Encroachments/2006, dated 22.04.2006, which is said to have been served on the petitioners. A perusal of the said notice shows that it was addressed to one Somaraju Venkataramana Rao and served on one K. Sai Gopala Rao. It appears that both Somaraju Venkataramana Rao and Sai Gopala Rao are strangers to the petitioners and therefore any notice served on them cannot be treated as the notice to the petitioners. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent not to dispossess the petitioners from their houses bearing Nos.4-4-144/6A and 4-4-144/6B except by following due process of law. It is made clear that the 1st respondent shall put the petitioners on a fresh notice and take appropriate action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 10th March, 2011 Js.