IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 18738 of 2001 BETWEEN: 1 Gavara Kanka Raju S/o. Sannibabu, R/o.Sabbavaram V&M, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Gavara Appa Rao S/o. Sanni Bau, R/o.Sabbavaram V&M, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Kondru Parvathamma W/o. late China Veeraiah R/o.Sabbavaram V&M, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Smt.Rajana Varahalamma W/o. late Yerra Naidu R/o.Sabbavaram V&M, Visakhapatnam District. 5 Jagarapu Appala Naidu S/o. late Somulu R/o.Sabbavaram V&M, Visakhapatnam District. 6 Smt.Pilli Ramutalli W/o. Ramu Naidu R/o.Sabbavaram V&M, Visakhapatnam District. 7 Jagarapu Gangamma W/o. Somulu R/o.Sabbavaram V&M, Visakhapatnam District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Junior Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Sabbavaram Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Executive Officer, Sabbavaram Gram Panchayat, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents as illegal and ultra vires to the Provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice directing the respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners possession and enjoyment of the plots and constructions made thereon in respective plots shown in the Annexure situated in Survey No.271 of Sabbavaram Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 19308 of 2001 BETWEEN: 1 Kamireddi Demudamma, W/o Bangaraiah, R/o Adireddipalem Sabbavaram Panchayat, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Bakam Sureedamma D/o Ramunaidu R/o Anthakapalli Sabbavaram Panchayat, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Kamireddi Demudamma, W/o Sreenivasa Rao, R/o Adireddipalem, Sabbavaram Panchayat, Visakhapatnam District 4 Kamireddi Kanakalaxmi W/o Muthyala Naidu, R/o Adiredipalem Sabbavaram Panchayat, Visakhapatnam District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Junior Engineer Roads & Buildings, Sabbavaram Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Executive Officer, Sabbavaram Gram Panchayat, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents as illegal and ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of principles of Natural Justice directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the plots and constructions made thereon in respective plots shown in the Annexure situated in Survey No. 271 of Sabbavaram Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and pass such other or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions raise a common question and they are accordingly being disposed of by this common order. 2. The prayers in both the writ petitions are identical in terms. The petitioners in both the cases seek a direction to the respondents not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the plots and constructions made therein, in Sy.No.271 of Sabbavaram Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The petitioners in both these cases claim that they were assigned pattas in respect of the subject plots in Sy.No.271 of Sabbavaram Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District after requisite enquiry by the authorities concerned. In pursuance of the said assignment, they constructed residential dwellings in accordance with the permission granted by the Gram Panchayat and have been residing there. It is stated that these dwellings are also subjected to property tax assessment and the petitioners also have electricity service connections under domestic category. These factual aspects are relied upon to demonstrate that the petitioners are in continuous occupation of the subject plots, having constructed dwellings thereupon. The grievance of the petitioners in WP.No.18738 of 2001 is that the respondent authorities came to their plots on 03.09.2001 and initiated demolition of the constructions without giving any reasons and notice. Except for the date, the grievance of the petitioners in WP.No.19308 of 2001 is identical. According to them, the respondent oﬃcials came to their plots on 10.09.2001 and started demolition proceedings. 4. It is the case of the petitioners in both these cases that they were not put on prior notice by the respondent authorities as to the action proposed by them. It is stated that the respondents were acting upon instigation by vested interests and that the same was in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Status quo orders were granted by this Court in both the writ petitions. No counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled in either of the two writ petitions. 6. Upon the facts as made out by the pleadings referred to above, it is manifest that the petitioners are in a position to show that they were allotted the subject plots in Sy.No.271 of Sabbavaram Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and were in possession and enjoyment thereof, having constructed residential dwellings. In the event of any action being proposed against the petitioners in respect of the subject plots, the authorities concerned are bound to follow the due procedure laid down by law, which would necessarily include issuance of notice to the petitioners and aﬀording an opportunity of hearing to them. The complaint of the petitioners that they were not put on notice about the action proposed by the respondents herein is not rebutted by way of counter affidavit. In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the plots allotted to them and the constructions made therein in Sy.No.271 of Sabbavaram Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without following the due procedure laid down by law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J November 14, 2008 DSK