IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1332 of 2003 Between: 1. Smt. Satyala Nookalamma, W/o. Late Venkayya @ Venkata Swamy, Hindu, Female, R/o. D.No. 1-5-131/2, Old D.No. 2-60, Akkireddipallem, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 2. Smt. Gotivada Ravanamma, W/o. Late Chinna Rao, Hindu, Female, R/o. D.No. 1-5-131/2, Old D.No. 2-60, Akkireddipallem, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 3. Kanumuri Vijaya Bharathi, W/o. Subba Rao, Hindu, Female, R/o. D.No. 1-5-131/2, Old D.No. 2-60, Akkireddipallem, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Gajuwaka Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1332 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent and its staff in seeking to demolish the thatched houses of the petitioners situated on land admeasuring 8 ½ cents in Sy.No.21/5 of Akkireddipalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam without following due process of law, as illegal and unconstitutional. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondent. Heard Sri P.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The sole grievance of the petitioners is that in order to lay road and drainage on either side of the existing road, the respondent is seeking to remove the thatched houses erected by the petitioners on the property allegedly belonging to them. It is the further case of the petitioners that in the said process, the respondent and its Officers have not been following due process of law by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). As the respondent has not controverted the averments contained in the affidavit, it is reasonable to presume that they are seeking to interfere with the properties of the petitioners for the purpose of widening of road and construction of drainage without following due process of law. The law is well settled that the State or its instrumentalities cannot deprive its subjects of the properties belonging to them without acquiring the same under the provisions of the Act. If the properties belong to the petitioners, as averred by them, they cannot be evicted from their properties or the same acquired without initiation of the land acquisition proceedings and following the procedure laid down under the Act. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by restraining the respondent Municipality from interfering with the properties of the petitioners without following due process of law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.1709 of 2003 is disposed of as infructuous. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 26.02.2009 v v