THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.10488 of 2006 BETWEEN: 1. Union of India rep. by Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and others PETITIONER And 1. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD) Roads and Buildings, Bodhan Division, Bhodhan-503 185 and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy Asst. Solicitor General Smt. B. Vaijayanthi Addl. S.C. for C.G. Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Roads and Buidlings The Court made the following: ORDER: The Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Union of India; the Post Master General, Hyderabad Region; and Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Nizamabad Division, have filed this writ petition complaining the action of the respondents, viz., the Executive Engineer, P.W.D and R & B Department, and Bodhan Municipality in seeking to demolish its building bearing No.2-5-285 situated in Bodhan town, as illegal. A Selection Grade Post Office and Office of the Inspector of Post Offices are located in the building bearing D.No.2-5-285, Bodhan Town. The said building has been constructed on an extent of 381 sq. yds., of land of which the 1st petitioner-Union of India is the owner. The 1st respondent issued a notice to the 2nd petitioner vide letter No.DB/T1/2005-2006/1084, dated 21.12.2005 to acquire 15 meters of front portion of the building for the purpose of widening of highway from Nizamabad to Narsi road. Pursuant to the said notice, the 1st respondent mobilized the machinery for demolition of building on 25.05.2006. Contending that the 1st respondent has no authority in proposing to demolish the building, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. The 1st respondent has filed counter affidavit. The tone and tenor of the counter is that the building should be demolished for widening of road, and that being the public purpose the petitioners should shift the Post Officer elsewhere. From a perusal of the counter affidavit, it is evident that the 1st respondent has neither followed due process of law nor is he willing to do so before taking over the property of the petitioners. The approach adopted by the 1st respondent suggests that on the pretext of public interest requiring the land for road widening no acquisition need be made is misplaced. Admittedly, the property belongs to the petitioners. That being so, if really the road requires widening the respondents are bound to acquire the premises by following due procedure prescribed by law. It is well settled that no one including an encroacher can be dispossessed without following due process of law. In the circumstances, the action of the respondents in proposing to demolish the building of the petitioners and taking away the land in pursuance of the notice dated 21.12.2005 must be held to be illegal. The respondents shall not demolish the subject building or dispossess the petitioners from the aforesaid land except by following due process of law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 11th February, 2011 Js.