IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15321 of 2008 Between: Sadaram Appa Rao S/o.late Appanna D.No.38-40-58, Main Road, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam - 18. ..... PETITIONER AND The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT 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 declare the action of the Respondents in attempting to demolish the shops of the Petitioner bearing D.No.38-40-58, 58-1-5 and 58-1-6, Main Road, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam without following due process of law is illegal and arbitrary by issuing a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and consequently direct the respondent not to interfere with the property of the Petitioner bearing D.No.38-40-58, Main Road, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam unless due process of law in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent: MR.N.RANGA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15321 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Sri Sadaram Appa Rao assailing the action of the respondent in interfering with his possession of the premises bearing No.38-40-58 situated at Marripalem in Visakhapatnam, without following due process of law. The petitioner is the owner of the house bearing No.38-40-58 situated at Marripalem in Visakhapatnam. The respondent-Corporation started making certain markings on the wall of the premises indicating demolition for the purpose of road widening. It is the plea of the petitioner that he was neither put on notice nor proceedings initiated for acquisition of the part of the premises owned by him for the purpose of road widening. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation takes notice on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. Apparently, no notice seems to have been served on the petitioner calling for his consent as provided under Section 146 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act nor any proceedings are initiated for acquisition of the part of the premises owned by the petitioner for road widening. Such is the situation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent to follow the due process of law, in the event of the portion of the house owned by the petitioner is required for the purpose of road widening. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 17.07.2008 Note: Furnish C.C. in three days B/o v v