IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 26586 of 2008 Between: Uppalapati Venkata Mohan S/o. Veera Raghavulu Yerramsetti Vari Street, D.No. 13-10-18/2, Gunupudi, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Bhimavaram Municipality Rep. by its Commissioner Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2 The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director Hyderabad. 3 The Executive Engineer (Hg) Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Tadepalligudem, West Godavari 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents herein in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of Petitioner herein in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 0.10 cents situated in Sy.No. 255/2 of Bhimavaram, West Godavari District which culminated in the Letter No. 429/DB/EE-TPG/2008-735 dt. 22-10-2008 issued by the 3rd Respondent herein and the Show Cause Notice in R.O.C. No. 644/08/G2 dt. 28-11- 2008 issued by the 1st Respondent herein as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.26586 of 2008 ORDER: 1 According to the petitioner he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 484 Sq. Yards (10 cents) in Sy.No.255/2 of Bhimavaram Municipality. However, under the guise that the entire extent situated in Sy.No.255/2 is a vacant site belonging to the municipality, the 1st respondent – Municipality issued a show cause notice dated 28.11.2008 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises failing which necessary action will be initiated. Questioning the same the petitioner approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition. 2 Heard Sri Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Bhimavaram municipality and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the A.P. Housing Board. 3 Apparently Sy.No.255/2 is in an extent of Ac.1.21 cents, out of which, the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0-10 cents and the remaining extent was handed over by the A.P. Housing Board to the 1st respondent - Municipality and thus it has become a vacant site belonging to the municipality. Where is that Ac.0-10 cents of land in Sy.No.255/2 is the dispute. In the light of the said dispute only, it appears that the petitioner approached the 1st respondent – Municipality and gave an application dated 27.10.2008 to furnish the information as to the extent of the land in various survey numbers of Gunupudi village, handed over by the A.P. Housing Board. In the light of the said controversy, as this Court is of the view that prima facie there is a genuine dispute with regard to the land in question, the petitioner has to offer his detailed explanation, so that, the municipality can hold a detailed enquiry into the said aspect. Of course, for the petitioner, to offer his detailed explanation, the detailed information, which he sought as per his application dated 27.10.2008, is required. 4 Hence this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the following directions: 1. The 1st respondent – Municipality is hereby directed to furnish the information to the petitioner as sought by him vide his application dated 27.10.2008 within a period of two weeks from today; 2. On receipt of such information, the petitioner shall offer his explanation, in detail, to the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks thereafter; 3. The 1st Respondent – Municipality, may, thereafter, pass appropriate orders, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks. Till such time, the 1st – Municipality shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner. No order as to costs. ------------------------------ SRI T.G.K, J. 04.12.2008 Kvsn