IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26679 of 2007 Between: Smt. G. Kalpana W/o. G. Srinivasa Rao R/o. H.No. 11-60/4, Main Road, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its City Planner, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Assistant City Planner, Zone-VI, Visakhapatnam. .....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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner's property situated in Sy.No. 1/4 vide Door No. 11-28 Main Road, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, without notice is arbitrary, bad and illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere into the petitioner property and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KURITIBHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Smt.G.Kalpana assailing the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in trying to demolish the structures put up by her in Survey No.1/4 vide Door No.11-28, Main Road, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of 72 sq. yards in Survey No.1/4 vide Door No.11-28, Main Road, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. She got the property under registered gift deed dated 06.11.2007 executed by her father Boddu Suryanarayana Murthy. According to her, when the respondents demolished part of the premises without paying any compensation, her father along with three others ﬁled W.P.No.9407 of 2000. The said writ petition came to be disposed of at the admission stage with an observation, which reads as hereunder: “On mere apprehension that the respondent might demolish a part of the house of the petitioners and acquire the land without following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no presumption in law that the Government authorities and statutory authorities would not follow the provisions of law either under the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Any action by the respondent shall have to be in accordance with law even if it is for the public purpose. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.” It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents demolished a portion of her house without following the due process of law. Apprehending further demolition, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 27.12.2007. The respondents entered appearance through their Standing Counsel and filed counter-affidavit and additional counter affidavit. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents are contemplating to demolish the premises owned by the petitioner without following the due process of law in road widening. He further submits that in respect of part of the demolished premises, no compensation has been paid to her or to her father. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the premises in occupation of the petitioner is in Government land bearing Survey No.29 and therefore, she is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. 7. Indisputably, in the earlier round of litigation a report has been called for from the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chinnagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Chinnagadili, submitted the report stating that the premises in occupation of the petitioner is in Survey No.1/4 of Gopalapatnam. In which case the contention of the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 that the premises in occupation of the petitioner is in Survey No.29 and it is a government land cannot be sustained. 8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow the due process of law in the event of the premises in occupation of the petitioner is required to be demolished in road widening. The petitioner is at liberty to claim the damages in accordance with law in respect of the property, which had already been demolished. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:04th September, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}