THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 7318 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner’s father-in-law’s father is said to have purchased 2.5 acres of land in a Court auction on 12.07.1940. The petitioner claims to have inherited the said property, to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof, to have constructed shops and to have erected a compound wall around the shops. It is the case of the petitioner that, while matters stood thus, officials of the respondent, without notice and without initiating land acquisition proceedings, had visited the premises in the second week of February, 2010, had put up markings, and had informed the petitioner that they intended to widen the road. Again on 29.03.2010, officials of the respondent corporation are said to have visited the petitioner’s premises, to have highhandedly demolished the compound wall, and to have informed the petitioner that they were taking steps to lay a road encroaching 15 feet from the existing road margin into the petitioner’s premises. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents the present writ petition is filed. Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that the respondents did not demolish the compound wall and that a preliminary survey had been undertaken for future road widening. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the respondents would not dispossess the petitioner from the land in question, or in any manner interfere with the subject property, except after complying with the statutory provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955, as extended to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, including Sections 145 and 146 thereof. In view of this submission of the learned Standing Counsel, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question, or in any manner interfere with her peaceful possession over the property, except in accordance with the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955, as extended to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, more particularly Section 145 and 146 thereof. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: 08.04.2010 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR