IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10248 of 2007 Between: Palika Suryanarayana S/o Ramasway 64-11-16, Treasury Colony Kakinada, East Godavaridistrict ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh repbyits Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secrtariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Municipal Corporation of Kakinada, rap by itsCommissioner, Kakinada. .....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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the impugned action of the respondents in high handed attitude in seeking to demolish the thatched house bearing Door No. 64-11-16, Treasury Colony, Pratap Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District, without notice and without following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice etc and consequently driect the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without proper notice and opportunity of being personally heard and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.V.ANANTHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10248 of 2007 ORDER: The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Municipality in taking steps for demolition of the petitioner’s thatched house bearing D.No.64-1I-16 situated at Treasury Colony, Pratap Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner and possessor of a thatched house bearing D.No.64-1I-16 situated at Treasury Colony, Pratap Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District and has been residing in the said house for the last 26 years. He contends that in the voter identity card issued in the year 1987, he was shown as a resident of the aforesaid house. While so, when his neighbours interfered with his possession, he filed O.S.No.7 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada and the suit was decreed on 23.12.2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his longstanding possession as the owner of the said house, having title over the subject property, the respondents are taking steps for demolition of the said house, without issuing any notice to him. A counter affidavit is filed by the Commissioner of Kakinada Municipality, wherein, while disputing the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner has unauthorizedly constructed the thatched house covered by Door No.64/1I/16 in the open space left in Layout No.167/87. While pleading that the petitioner is not having any right over the said property, dismissal of the writ petition is prayed for. From the aforesaid counter averments, it is clear that there is no indication of giving any notice to the petitioner, and even if the petitioner does not have any right to construct a house in the open space left in Layout No.167/87, for removal of such unauthorized construction, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to put the petitioner on notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondents are directed not to evict the petitioner from the thatched house bearing D.No.64/1I/16 situated at Treasury Colony, Pratap Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District, without following due process of law. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner has constructed the said house in the layout belonging to the respondent without any authority of law, this order does not preclude the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner for demolition of the said house and take steps accordingly. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J 28.04.2009 v v