IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 1910 of 2009 Between: S. Bangaru Raju S/o. S. Pydi Raju R/o.5-2-9, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vizianagaram. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Vizianagaram Municipality, Vizianagaram. .....RESPONDENT 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(s) essentially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent herein in trying to demolish the shop bearing D.No.8-1-9, situated at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vizianagaram, without initiating proceedings under Land Acquisition Act is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that his father gifted him a Shop bearing D.No.8-1-9, situated at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vizianagarm under registered document No.4790 of 2002, dated 16.10.2002, and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by doing business therefrom. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-Commissioner, without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and without paying compensation, is trying to demolish his shop on 6.2.2009 for the purpose of widening the road. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not at all against the road-widening programme proposed by the respondent nor has he any objection to the acquisition of his shop, however, he submits that the respondent has to issue notice and follow due procedure under law before demolishing the structures. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent has submitted that so far the respondent has not issued any notice to the petitioner proposing to demolish the structures/shop in question, and in case the respondent proposes to acquire any piece of land/shop belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of widening the road, he shall certainly issue notice to the petitioner and follow due process under law. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that the respondent shall certainly follow due process under law before going to acquire the petitioner’s land, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The respondent is directed not to demolish the structures or take away any portion of the petitioner’s property and not to dispossess her without following due process of law or initiating Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 5th February, 2009 Note: Issue operative portion by wire. B/o bcj