IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3920 of 2009 Between: Barre Satyavani W/o. Sri Murali Krishna Raju, Hindu R/o. D.No.12-42-7, Balacheruvu Road, New Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Visakhapatnm Municiapl Corporation, Visakhapatnam, rep by its Commissioner. 2 The Zonal Commissioner, Gajuwaka Zone, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to dispossess the petitioner from her house site bearing Plot No. 109 and 110 of an extent of 400 Sq. Yards in Sy. No. 64/11 B and 64/16B of Pedagantyada Village and Mandal in the Municipal limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the above said property without recourse to law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents in proposing to dispossess her from the house site bearing Plot Nos.109 and 110 in an extent of 400 square yards in Sy.No.64/11B and 64/16 B of Pedagantyada Village and Mandal in the municipal limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation without following due process of law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased the subject matter of land in the year 2000 from its original owners and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Earlier, when the revenue authorities tried to interfere with her possession, she also filed a suit against them in O.S.No.57 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka and obtained injunction in I.A.No.232 of 2007 dated 20.4.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that now the municipal authorities are trying to take possession of her house site without following due process of law at the instance of the local MLA and the Mayor of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. On instructions, the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that if the land of the petitioner is required by the Municipal Corporation, it will follow due process of law and then only take possession of the land. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the land of the petitioner is required by the authorities, the same shall be taken possession of only after following due process of law. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.27.2.2009 msv