IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13234 of 2009 Between: R.Laxmi Devamma, W/o. Late R.narayana Swamy, R/o. D.No.24/690, Penukonda Road, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Dharmavaram Municipality, rep by its Commissioner, dharmavaram, Ananthaur District. 2 The District Collector, Ananthapur District, Ananthaur, 3 The Assistnat Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildins, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District. 4 The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Division, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur 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 issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring that the action of the respondents in threatening to demolish the house of the petitioner bearing D.No.24/690 (Old No.16-674) situated at any notice and withut following the due process of Law, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps without following the due process of Law. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. NASARAIAH GOLLA Counsel for the Respondents : MR. S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.13234 OF 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in threatening to demolish the house of the petitioner bearing D.No.24/690 (Old No.16-674), situated at Penukonda Road, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law as arbitrary and illegal. Sri S.I. Newton, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Municipality, under instructions, stated that it has been proposed by the Municipality to remove the encroachments made on the public roads and for the said purpose certain structures have been earmarked and appropriate steps would be taken following due process of law. However it is the specific case of the petitioner that the impugned demolition is for the purpose of road-widening and there was never any allegation of encroachment so far as the petitioner’s house is concerned. Even where any demolitions are required for the purpose of road- widening, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent states that the necessary steps would be taken only in accordance with law. Accordingly, recording the statement of the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Municipality, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to demolish the house of the petitioner without following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 03.07.2009 gbs