IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15735 of 2008 Between: 1 Allipilli Yallaji, S/o. late Laxmayya, R/o. 3-1-236,Jalari Yendada Pedda Waltair,Visakhapatnam. 2 Allipilli Satyavathi, W/o. A.Yallaji, R/o. 3-1-236,Jalari Yendada Pedda Waltair,Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Greater Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam, rep by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. 2 Gajula Vivekananda @ Babji, S/o. Late Raghavendra, R/o. D.No.4-72-14, Beach Road, Lawson Bay Colony, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam. P.....RESPONDENT(S) 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 delcare the action of the 1st respondent in trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the premises bearing No.3-1-236 situated at Jari Yendada, Pedda Waltair, visakhapatnam along with appurtenant garden by issuing appropriate writ, or writ of mandamus or order as Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 15735 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the action of the Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakahpatnam in trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the premises bearing No. 3-1-236, situated at Jari Yendada, Pedda Waltair, Visakhapatnam. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned standing counsel appearing for 1st respondent takes notice. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 4. The petitioners claimed to be the owner of the 200 square yards of the house site bearing No. 3-1-236. The petitioners apprehend that the 1st respondent at the instance of 2nd respondent is trying to demolish the constructions without following the due process of law. 5. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 1st respondent will follow due process of law in the event of the construction put up by the petitioners are required to be demolished. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to follow due process of law, in the event the constructions made by the petitioners are required to be demolished. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 22nd July, 2008. Note: C.C. today, B/oKM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 15735 OF 2008 22nd July, 2008.