IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3538 of 2005 Between: B. Suri Babu, S/o. Late B. Appanna, R/o. Maduranagar, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Satish Kumar for Sri K.V.Subrahmanya Narusu Counsel for the Respondent: Sri N.Ranga Reddy (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in interfering with the petitioner’s possession of 267 square yards of land in plot No. 3, Survey No. 38/2 of Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Satish Kumar representing Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narsu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. An extent of 300 square yards of land in Survey No. 31/8E and 31/9A of Maduranagar, Visakhapatnam belonging to the petitioner’s father was taken over by the respondent for road widening to connect Shankarmattam road with National Highway No.5. In lieu of payment of compensation, an extent of 267 square yards of land in plot No. 3 of Survey No. 38/2 of Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam was allotted to the petitioner’s father by the respondent vide proceedings dated 02-04- 1983. This was preceded by resolution No. 179, dated 07-12-1982/25- 01-1983. The petitioner claimed that as no compensation for the balance extent to make 300 square yards acquired from the petitioner’s father was paid, on his request being made, a sum of Rs.1,33,035.60 ps was paid under Award No. 14/85, dated 20-08-1985. When the respondent attempted to dispossess the petitioner, he filed Writ Petition No. 24714 of 1997 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 18-01-2000 with a direction to the respondent to follow due process of law by affording an opportunity to the petitioner to file his objections, if the respondent proposes to cancel the allotment of land and pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner averred that purporting to follow the said order of this Court, the respondent issued show cause notice dated 02-11-2002 calling upon him to show cause why allotment of the plot should not be cancelled and the land restored to the Corporation. He further averred that in response to the said notice, he gave a reply and also filed O.S No. 766 of 2001 in the Court of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The grievance of the petitioner is that having not passed any order on the explanation submitted by him, the officials of the respondent started interfering with his possession and they failed to dispose of his application for sanctioning of plan for construction of a building. In the counter affidavit filed by the City Planner of the respondent – Corporation, the fact of allotment of land in lieu of payment of compensation and payment of compensation for the extent of 33 cents is admitted. It is however averred that as the petitioner failed to file ‘justified reply’, the respondent cancelled the allotment temporarily made earlier as the entire land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Though a cryptic averment was made, as noted above, that the allotment in favour of the petitioner’s father was cancelled, neither the reference and the date on which such cancellation was made have been specified in the counter affidavit nor a copy of cancellation proceedings has been filed. In the absence of the relevant details regarding the cancellation and in view of the failure of the respondent to substantiate the said averment, this Court cannot countenance the stand of the respondent. If an order has been passed by the respondent behind the back of the petitioner, such an act would be in the teeth of the order passed by the Court in Writ Petition No. 24714 of 1997. As the respondent has failed to satisfy that the earlier order of this Court has been followed in its letter and spirit, the purported cancellation cannot be treated as legal and valid. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent – Corporation is directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the land, subject however to the liberty given to the respondent to initiate action afresh and take appropriate action after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. No order as to costs. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03-03-2009 ks