IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 21478 of 2002 Between: Muchantula Raja Reddy S/o. Late Venkata Reddy R/o. H.No.2-53(New), 6-47(Old), Ankireddypally, sircilla Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Ankireddypally Gram Panchayat Rep by its Sarpanch, Ankireddypally Sircilla Mandal, Karimnagar District. 2 Mandal Parisad Development Officer Sircilla Mandal, Sircilla, Karimnagar District. 3 The District Collector Karimnagar, Karimnagar district. .....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 to issue an order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proposed action of the respondents to further demolish the house bearing No.2-53(new) 6-47(Old) at Ankireddypally, Sircilla Mandal, Karimnagar District., as arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and onsequently directing the respondent not to proceed with the road widening programme without intiating due proceedings according to law and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.SREENIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This is a pre-emptive writ petition. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 4942 of 1998 apprehending dispossession by the respondents of his house property bearing H.No. 2-53 (new) (6-47 old) at Ankireddypalli, Sircilla mandal, Karimnagar District. The petitioner apprehended demolition of a portion of his house property for the purpose of road widening and filed the earlier writ petition. By the order dt. 2.2.2001, W.P.No. 4942 of 1998 was disposed of observing that there was no cause of action and the respondents are at liberty to take action after following the due process of law. According to the petitioner, thereafter the Sarpanch of 1st respondent Grampanchayat, on 24.10.2002 marked the petitioner’s double storied building for the purpose of demolition and on 25.10.2002 under the personal supervision of the Sarpanch, the tiles in front of the petitioner’s house were broken and further marked a certain portion and threatened demolition of the marked portion. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property having constructed the house about 40 years back and states that the respondents, in particular, the Sarpanch of the 1st respondent Grampanchayat has demolished the tiles and threatened further demolition without following the due process of law. The petitioner alleges that there is no process for acquisition of the property initiated. No counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition of the year 2002. On the application of the principles of non-traverse by the counter, the allegation that the Sarpanch of the 1st respondent Grampanchayat has demolished the tiles of the petitioner’s house and further marked certain portion and threatened demolition of the marked portion despite the observation in the earlier judgement in W.P.No. 4942 of 1998 not to take action except by following the due process of law, must be considered as having been un-rebutted and therefore established. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable by the 1st respondent to the petitioner. It is open to the 3rd respondent to identify the concerned Sarpanch of the 1st respondent Grampanchayat and initiate proceedings for recovery of this amount from the said individual for violation of the law and for traumatizing a citizen, in transgression of his Constitutional and legal rights. The 3rd respondent shall cause an enquiry whether the Sarpanch of the 1st respondent had marked the petitioner’s house and demolished the tiles in front of his house and threatened to undertake further demolition. The 3rd respondent shall file a criminal complaint against the Sarpanch apart from any other disciplinary or other action as may be available to the 3rd respondent, if the unlawful conduct is established. The writ petition is allowed with costs as above. _____________ 17th April, 2009. Krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 21478 of 2002. Dt. 17.4.2009.