IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4673 of 2007 Between: Sri Prakash Chand B. Jain S/o Bhurmalji B. Jain R/o W.No. 14, D. No. 82, Achari Street, Mandapala Street, Nellore, Nellore (DT) ..... PETITIONER AND The Municipal Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, Order direction, more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appreciate Writ or order or direction direct the Respondent not to interfere with thepeaceful physical possession of the petitioner onthe schedule mentioned property W. No. 14 D. No. 82 Achari Street Mandapala Street, Nellore, Nellore (Dt and further direct the Respondnet submit report before thisHon'ble Court immediately inthe interest of the justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHAIK JILANI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.SREEDHAR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Sri Prakash Chand B. Jain with a prayer to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with his peaceful possession over the property bearing W.No.14, D.No.82, Achari Street, Mandapala Street, Nellore. 2. Petitioner is owner of the house admeasuring 45 Ankanams 32 sq. feet or equivalent to 303.977 sq. meters situated at W.No.14, D.No.82, Achari Street, Mandapala Street, Nellore. He got the property under a registered sale deed, dated 15.06.2005, executed by Sannareddy Sulochanamma w/o.Krishna Reddy and K.C.Mohana alias Mohanamma W/o.Komara Chandrasekhar Reddy. The authorities of the respondents-Corporation have been visiting his house and contemplating to demolish the structures without following the due process of law. 3. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit. D. Karuna Chandra Babu, Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, has sworn to the affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and orders came to be passed. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that when order copy is tried to be served on the petitioner, he avoided the same and therefore, service came to be effected by way of affixture. Para.9 of the counter-affidavit reads as hereunder: “9. In reply to the allegations made in paragraph 7 of the affidavit, it is submitted that it is absolutely false that the petitioner has brought the above said situation to the notice of this respondent-Corporation or Commissioner and in turn he assured that the Town Planning Officer will not interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the property and also he did not initiate any action. The petitioner herein never brought to the notice of the respondent-Corporation as per Section 452 (2) of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, since the petitioner was not received the notice issued by the Corporation and refused to receive the same.” 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the authorities of the respondents-Corporation are contemplating to demolish the structures without following the due process of law. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation submits that the proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and necessary order has been passed. He further submits that if the petitioner wants regularization of the unauthorized constructions, he is at liberty to move an application as per G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007. 7. When the respondents-Corporation initiated proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the petitioner cannot complain that the action taken by the respondents-Corporation is highhanded. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make an application for availment of the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007. No costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:25th June, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}