THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.20711 OF 2010 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Corporation in attempting to trespass into the house sites belonging to the petitioners to an extent of 400 Sq.yards and 275 Sq.yards respectively in survey No.76/3, Chinnagadili Mandalam within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation without following the mandatory procedure under Section 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioners are cousins having purchased the aforementioned adjacent building sites in the year 2005 under registered sale deeds and they are in possession of the same. In the year 2006, the respondent Corporation proposed for formation of four lane 200 feet wide road running infront of the said two building sites belonging to the petitioners. Both the house sites of the petitioners would be fully covered by the said proposed road. In this regard, though W.P.No.10145 of 2006 was filed by petitioner No.1 and the same was disposed with a direction to the respondent Corporation to pay compensation to the petitioner either through negotiations or by following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act in case the respondent requires the plot of the petitioner, there is no response from the respondent Corporation. Petitioner No.2 also approached respondent Corporation, but there is no response from the respondent Corporation and recently, respondent Corporation started laying the road and has laid the road in the rest of the area of the Government land. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. 3. Respondent Corporation filed a counter-affidavit stating that the formation of 200 feet wide road has been commenced and almost completed except at the place where the properties of the petitioners are situated. The petitioners will not be dispossessed from their property except under due process of law. If the properties of the petitioners are required for the purpose of widening of road, the respondent Corporation would follow the due procedure by allotting alternative site in lieu of the affected property of the petitioners in the rehabilitation layout already formed by the respondent Corporation in the site covered by Sy.Nos.6, 17, 30(P) and 31(P) of Chinagadila Village. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the land to an extent of 400 Sq.yards and 275 Sq.yards respectively in survey No.76/3, Chinnagadili Mandalam within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation was acquired for the purpose of formation of four lane 200 feet wide road without following due process of law and thereby, violating Sections 146 and 147 of the Act; that in respect of some other persons whose lands have been acquired, the respondent Corporation has provided alternative lands and therefore, he prays to give a direction to the respondent Corporation to allot alternative suitable lands to the petitioners, as the petitioners are also similarly situated persons. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation stated that the Corporation issued a notice on 16.06.2006 to the petitioners directing them to produce all the documentary evidence in respect of the title of the sites in question so as to take further action and that appropriate decision would be taken for considering the case of the petitioners provided they are having a right, title and interest over the property, which was acquired for the formation of 200 feet wide road. 6. The petitioners claim to be the owner of plots to an extent of 400 Sq.yards and 275 Sq.yards respectively in survey No.76/3, Chinnagadili Mandalam within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. Those lands were acquired and possession was taken by the respondent Corporation for the purpose of formation of four lane 200 feet wide road. It is also not in dispute that some other sites in the vicinity belonging to several persons were also taken possession by the respondent Corporation for the purpose of laying of the road. It is not in dispute that in respect of those persons, the Corporation has given alternative sites. The grievance of the petitioners is that their case also stands on the same footing with that of those persons, who were already granted house sites. But the said aspect has to be decided by the respondent Corporation in accordance with law. If really the petitioners have got right, title and interest over the sites in question, the respondent Corporation has to provide alternative sites, as it was done in the case of several other persons. Therefore, the respondent Corporation is directed to call for all the relevant documentary evidence from the petitioners to show about their title and the petitioners are directed to produce all the documentary evidence before the respondent Corporation within two (2) weeks from today and thereafter, the same has to be considered by the respondent Corporation and appropriate decision has to be taken for allotting alternative sites to the petitioners within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from the petitioners. 7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 24th November, 2011 Note:- Furnish C.C. within one week. B/O. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.20711 OF 2010 Date:24.11.2011 AMD