IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4330 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Smt. Kandragula Hemalatha W/o. K. Gurunadh & Others …. Petitioners AND Greater Viskahapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner. …. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4330 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondent – Greater Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation in taking steps to demolish the buildings covered by D.No.5-1 to 5-6 of petitioner No.1, D.No.5-10 of petitioner No.2 and D.No.11-7 to 11-11 of petitioner Nos.3 and 4, situate at Gopalapatnam, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the officials of the respondent corporation have marked some portion of the buildings of the petitioners for the purpose of road widening and also taking steps for demolition of the same, without following due process of law. It is further submitted that previously in the year 2000 also, the respondent Corporation acquired some land of the petitioners forcibly, for the same purpose, without paying any compensation to them. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent corporation submitted that merely the survey was conducted to mark the portions, which are required for the purpose of road widening and that in case the land or buildings of the petitioners are required, for the purpose of road widening, the respondent corporation will duly follow the procedure as laid under Sections 146 and 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, which is also applicable to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. 4. In the circumstances and in view of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent corporation not to demolish the buildings of the petitioners, if the said buildings have not notified under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for any public purpose. However, it is made clear that if the said buildings of the petitioners are required for any public purpose, this order will not preclude the respondent corporation either to obtain the consent of the petitioners or notify the said buildings by following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 5. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J February 24, 2010. KTL