IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.29097 OF 2011 Date:31-10-2011 Between:- Munaga Tirumala Venkata Subba Rao and another … Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.29097 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in encroaching the private property for the purpose of widening the Road without acquiring the petitioners land situated in Ward No.2 in T.S. No.2/3 of Ongole for an extent of 4-47 Gadis or 35.77 square yards as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to widen the road after acquiring the aforesaid land belonging to the petitioners. 2. The brier facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioners purchased an extent of 35 Gadis or 239.44 Square Yards vacant site situated in T.S. No.2/3 in Ward No.2 of Ongole Municipality, abutting the Northern side of the Kurnool road, in the year 2006 through document No.5513 of 2006, dated 14-08-2006. Recently, the Government of Andhra Pradesh decided to upgrade the Ongole Municipality into Municipal Corporation and the Ongole Municipality, 2nd respondent herein, has taken a decision to widen the main roads to a width of 100’ for public convenience. The 2nd respondent has marked both side buildings of the Kurnool road and as per the markings, the site of the petitioners to an extent of 14’ depth would be taken by the 2nd respondent. The petitioners have no objection for giving their land for widening of the road, but the respondents are not following the due procedure, prescribed under law, for acquiring their land for public purpose. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without taking recourse to due process of law in acquiring the land, the respondents made markings for demolition of the structures of the petitioners and hence, he prays to give a direction to the respondents. 5. On other hand, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the 2nd respondent, contended that the respondents would follow the due process of law for acquiring the land of the petitioners for the purpose of road widening. 6. There cannot be any dispute that the respondents cannot encroach into the land of the petitioners unless the land is acquired in accordance with law. No proceedings are initiated for acquisition of the land of the petitioners. Therefore, unless the respondents acquire the land in accordance with law, the question of taking possession of the land for the purpose of widening the road cannot arise. 7. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow due procedure for acquiring the land of the petitioners for road widening purpose, since the petitioners have no objection for acquiring the land in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J October 31, 2011. KTL