THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 4567 of 2009 O r d e r: Questioning the proceedings dated 19.02.2009, issued by the respondent, namely the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, directing the petitioners to remove the structures as per the markings made earlier so as to facilitate the junction improvement and widening of the road, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. When the respondent proposed to widen the road from Panja Centre to Railway Station on the western side and marked the houses of the petitioners for demolition, the petitioners filed representation dated 02.01.2008, and when no action thereon had been taken, they filed writ petition in W.P. No. 2531 of 2008, and this Court by order dated 08.02.2008, following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in P. Lakshmana Rao v. Executive Officer [2000 (5) ALT 246 DB], disposed of the same directing the respondent as follows: The respondent is directed to issue notice and afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before resorting to demolition of the structures for the purpose of road widening and in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondent is directed to maintain status quo as regards the possession of the houses obtaining as on today. Pursuant to the above order, as is evident from the impugned order, the respondent issued notices to the petitioners on 17.03.2008, 07.02.2009 and 11.02.2009, but the petitioners refused to receive the same, and failed to avail the opportunity of hearing, and in those circumstances, the respondent considering the material available before him, particularly the survey records and FMB sketches, came to the conclusion that the structures raised by the petitioners, which are assigned D. Nos. 12-2-67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78 and 79 at Praja Centre, are constructions raised on road margins, and accordingly, directed the petitioners to remove the structures to facilitate the junction improvement and for widening the road. Now the petitioners contend that they no objection if the respondent takes land equally on two sides of the road by measuring from the road median, and that the action of the respondent in seeking to demolish the houses on one side of the road, as illegal and arbitrary. This contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted. The petitioners, could have well taken this stand before the respondent, which they failed to do, as indicated in the impugned order by the respondent. The respondent having failed to appear before the respondent pursuant to the notices issued by the respondent in pursuance of the order of this Court, now cannot complain about the impugned order passed by the respondent directing demolition of their houses contending that the respondent should take the land equally on two sides of the road equally measuring from the median. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 17th March, 2009. KSR