IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO. 2622 of 2009 Between: Datla Satyanarayana Raju S/o. Satyanarayana Raju R/o. Chinna Waltair, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, GVMC Bhavan, Asilmetta, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Zone-II, GVMC Bhavan, Asilmetta, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam Department. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing part of the attached hut of the petitioner, situated in survey No..6/5A part of Chinnavaltair, Visakhapatnam, is illegal, high handed and in violation of principals of natural justice in violation of Art. 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in his property to an extent of 920 Sq. Yds. in Survey No.6/5A part of Chinnawaltair, Visakhapatnam expect due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.D.PANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.2622 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of 920 sq. yards in Sy.No.6/5A part of Chinnawaltair, Visakhapatnam, having purchased the same by virtue of a registered sale deed from one Yanamareddy Rami Reddy and 15 others, for a total consideration of Rs.2,48,400/-, and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of his purchase. Thereafter, he raised a thatched hut and appointed a watchman in the year 2000 to lookafter the said property. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that the officials of the 2nd respondent, without issuing any notice to him, visited his property and demolished the part of his thatched hut and they are trying to dispossess him from his property. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, and both of them agreed for disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from his property, without following the due process of law, and in that process, the respondents shall issue notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation, and if the petitioner submits his explanation, if any, thereto, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 12.02.2009 v v