THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11697 OF 2002 Dated 9th September, 2009 Between: Kanne Komala Indira Kumari and others …Petitioners And State of A.P rep. By its Chief Secretary and others ….Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri A.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy Counsel for the respondents: G.P for Municipal Administration and Command Area Development The Court made the following O R D E R: In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking directions by way of Mandamus to the respondents not to interfere with their residential houses and structures situated at Danavaipeta Road No.1, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. In the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that though they have constructed their residential houses in an approved lay out, the respondents are taking steps for removal of the structures for the purpose of road widening without due process of law. Alleging that the authorities of the third respondent-Corporation have marked their houses for removal, for the purpose of road widening, in the absence of their consent or without notifying the structures under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), the petitioners approached this Court by way of this writ petition. At the stage of admission, this Court by order dated 02.07.2002, granted interim direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the properties by the petitioners. Separate counter-affidavits are filed by respondents 2 and 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, he, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, stated that petitioner No.1 has encroached 3 feet road margin throughout the length of her site and petitioner No.6 encroached 13 feet road margin throughout the length of his site. He further stated that so far private properties are concerned, if they are required for the purpose of road widening, they will follow the procedure as per law. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Though it is alleged in the counter-affidavit that there is encroachment by petitioner Nos.1 and 6, there is no indication from the averments of the counter-affidavit of initiation of any proceedings for removal of such encroachments under the provisions of the relevant Acts. Since the petitioners disputed the alleged encroachments, unless a summary enquiry is conducted, no steps shall be taken for removal of the encroachments straightaway. With regard to the other petitioners, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that if the land and structures are needed for the purpose of road widening, they would follow the due process of law and take steps for acquisition of the required portions. In view of these averments in the counter-affidavit, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents not to deprive or evict the petitioners from their residential sites or structures raised by them situated at Danavaipeta Road No.1, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, without following due process of law. Even if it is found that any encroachments are there, respondents have to notify the petitioners giving details of the said encroachments and only after inviting objections from them, action should be taken. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 9th September, 2009 vrn