IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 22082 of 2008 Between: Chilakalapudi Machara Rao S/o Veerraju R/o D. No. 2-87, Sampatha Nagaram Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent Engineer (Roads & Buildings), East Godavari District at kakinada. 2 The Executive Engineer (Roads & Buildings), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from his House Property bearing D. No. 2-87 situated at Sampatha Nagaram Village, Rajanagaram mandal without issuing any notice or passing any order as wholly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Art. 300A of the Constitution of Indiaand consequently direct the respondents notto disposes the petitioner from the above mentioned house property without following due process of law in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following: ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondents are interfering with his house property bearing D.No.2-87 situated at Sampatha Nagaram Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District without taking any recourse to the procedure laid down by law and that they have already demolished the compound wall. It is stated that this is done for the purpose of laying a drain. 2. Learned Government Pleader placed before this Court a copy of the Sampatha Nagaram Gram Panchayat resolution dated 05.08.2008 which speaks to the eﬀect that for the construction of the subject drain the structures of the petitioner in D.No.2-87 would cause obstruction and that the Gram Panchayat resolved to remove the compound wall so as to continue with the construction of the drainage. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that it is on the basis of this resolution that the drainage work was undertaken. He also pointed out to the fact that the Gram Panchayat was not a party to the present writ petition. He also informed the Court that the drainage work was in progress and any order at this stage interdicting the same would be adverse to the public interest. 3. The resolution of the Gram Panchayat evidences the fact that the property of the petitioner was found to be an obstruction to the construction of the drainage and that the Gram Panchayat resolved to remove the petitioner’s compound wall in this regard. It is not open to the Gram Panchayat to baldly pass a resolution to remove the petitioner’s compound wall without taking recourse to the procedure laid down by law. Even if the land occupied by the petitioner belongs to the Gram Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat is bound to follow the procedure so as to dispossess him. The failure of the Gram Panchayat in this regard would not empower the respondents, being the roads and buildings authorities, to trample upon the petitioner’s rights and continue with the drainage work. It is already on record that the compound wall constructed by the petitioner has been demolished and the progress of the drainage work without following the procedure laid down by law would give rise to a cause of action for the petitioner to claim damages before the competent civil Court. 4. Be that as it may, it is not open to the respondents to dispossess the petitioner or interfere with his house property bearing No. 2-87, Sampatha Nagaram Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, without following the procedure laid down by law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J October 6, 2008 Note: Issue operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. (B/o) DSK