THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.27135 of 2006 BETWEEN: S. Mahabub Basha, W/o. S. Osmanmiah, R/o. H.No.18/794, 2nd floor, Lecturer Colony, Kurnool. PETITIONER And The Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Kurnool. RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Veera Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri A. Sreedhar The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner has approached this Court complaining that the respondent was taking steps to demolish his thatched shed without issuing any notice and following due process of law. The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of 78 sq. yds of land situated in Sy.No.716/B of Kalluru Village from one Sri Kamarthi Swamy Srinivas under a registered sale deed No.12474/2006 dated 25.05.2006. He has erected a thatched shed on the site and running a fruit juice stall under the name and style of Royal Fruit Juices. It is stated that influenced by one of the neighbours, the staff of the respondent visited the site on 28.12.2006 and threatened to demolish the structure. The petitioner states that such an action on the part of the respondent in seeking to dispossess and removing the shed is not within the domain of the respondent as the property is private property. Apprehending that the shed would be removed highhandedly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. While asserting that the petitioner is the owner of the subject site by virtue of a sale deed referred to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so long as the petitioner holds title in respect of the property the respondent cannot legally interfere or dispossess him from the subject site. On the other hand, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the subject site is reserved as open site and the same is vested in the municipality. The then owner had constructed a building and running a school in the name and style of Rayalaseema Public School. Since the site was vested in the respondent, the said construction was demolished on 26.09.2002 and possession was taken with effect from the said date. From the rival contentions, it is evident that there is a title dispute over the subject site. While the petitioner has categorically asserted that he has purchased the said site under a registered sale deed, the respondent has equally asserted that the site is vested in it. I am not inclined to go into the merits relating to the title of the parties. Indisputably, the petitioner has constructed a thatched shed and running his business of selling fruit juice. That being so the respondent cannot unilaterally resort either to demolish the shed or to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law. It is well settled that even an encroacher is not liable to be evicted except in accordance with law. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of holding that unless the process of law is followed the petitioner shall not be disturbed. The respondent is at liberty to initiate such steps as are available to it under law either for removal of shed or for taking possession of the subject site. It is clarified that subject to the steps that may be taken, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained in all respects by both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 3rd February, 2011 Js.