IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSADY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.15571 OF 2003 BETWEEN: Godavari Delta Mission Trust …PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer and others …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.15571 OF 2003 ORDER: The petitioner is a religious and charitable society registered under the Indian Societies Registration Act, 1860. It claims to be the owner of an extent of 376 ¼ square yards of site with a building bearing Door Nos.4-4- 16/2 and 4-4-18 standing thereon situated in R.S.No.53/1A of Narsapur Village, West Godavari District. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the process of road widening the third respondent demolished the petitioner’s residential houses and widened the road without following due process of law and without paying any compensation. Therefore, it seeks a writ to direct the respondents to pay compensation and damages. 3. As per the pleadings in the Writ Petition, the aforesaid house of the petitioner, along with several other houses, is situated by the side of the River Vasistha Godavari. There is a passage separating the River and the said houses. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their subordinates visited the spot on 15.12.2002 and made markings on the building of the petitioner with a view to demolish the same for the purpose of road widening. On the protest of the petitioner, the respondents stopped demolition that day. But as the threat of demolition existed, the petitioner along with two others filed Writ Petition No.25072 of 2002 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 18.12.2002, with a direction to the respondents not to demolish the premises without following due process of law. However, the respondents without complying the said orders demolished the building without giving any prior notice to the petitioner and following due process of law. It is also stated that the petitioner filed C.C.No.282 of 2003 complaining disobedience of the orders in Writ Petition No.25072 of 2002. But the same was closed as there was another contempt case viz., C.C.No.253 of 2003 filed by another affected person was already pending. It is stated that subsequently, the said C.C.No.253 of 2003 was also closed on 25.06.2003. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings it is contended by Sri Sripal, learned counsel representing Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Municipality demolished the building of the petitioner high handedly and in utter violation of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.25072 of 2002, dated 18.12.2002. No notice was given to the petitioner nor the due process of law contemplated either under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was followed. He would further contend that through such high handed action, the petitioner was deprived of its property and therefore, the Municipality is under obligation to pay compensation and damages. 5. Counter Affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3 i.e., Commissioner, Narsapur Municipality. While denying the allegations of the petitioner that its building was demolished high handedly, in the counter affidavit it is stated that the Municipality served notice to the encroachers whose properties were affected and due notice was served on the particular individuals. It is also stated that the respondents never acquired the property of the petitioner. 6. As per the aforesaid contentions, though it is the case of the petitioner that its property was demolished without following due process of law and in a high handed manner, the petitioner has not placed any material before this Court to show that the respondents caused the demolition. As mentioned above, respondent No.3 has categorically denied the demolition, asserting that the petitioner’s property was not acquired. Further, it has been clearly stated that notices are issued to those who are encroachers and whose properties were affected in the road widening process and those structures were voluntarily removed by the concerned persons. In view of the categorical denial and in the absence of any material, it is not possible for this Court to record a finding that the respondents demolished the building of the petitioner or otherwise affected its property. 7. In the circumstances, in view of the disputed questions of fact no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, open to the petitioner to seek any other common law remedy available to it, if it is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J March 10, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.15571 OF 2003 March 10, 2011