IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 10678 of 2008 Between: 1 Chintapalli Bangaraiah S/o.Ramanna R/o.D.No.12-2-14, Ramachandrapuram East Godavari District 2 Sirigineedi Surayya Kapu S/o.Gangaramaiah R/o.12-2-9 Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District 3 Sirigineedi Surya Bhaskaramani W/oSrirama Murthy R/o. D.No.12-2-5 Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District 4 Kota Venkata Sambasiva Rao S/o. Venkataramanaiah R/o.D.No.12-2-3 Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District 5 Venkata Krishnanda Chowdary S/o.Veerraju R/o.Ratnampet, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary to Municipal Administation and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 Ramachandrapuram Municipality, rep.by its Commissioner, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in deciding to demolish building properties of the petitioners bearing door No.12-2-14,12-2-9,12-2-7,12-2-5,12-2- 4,12-2-3,12-2-2, 12-2-2,12-2-1,12-1-30,31,32 and 12-2-17 situated northrn adjoining Mandapet to Kakinada Road in Ramachandrapuram Municipal limits for the purpose of drain widening without following due procedure established by law as illegal, irrgular , arbitrary without jurisdiction adn violative of the provisons of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and offends Articles, 14,21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish any portion of their building and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for second respondent-Corporation. This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus declaring action of the second respondent-Corporation in taking decision to demolish the building properties of the petitioners bearing door Nos.12-2-14, 12-2-9, 12-2-7, 12-2-5, 12-2- 4, 12-2-3, 12-2-2, 12-2-1, 12-1-30, 31, 32 and 12-2-17, situated northern adjoining Mandapet to Kakinada Road in Ramachandrapuram Municipal limits for the purpose of drain widening, without following due procedure established by law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and offends under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to demolish any portion of their buildings. The case of the petitioners is that they are the absolute owners and posessors of site and Madras terraced shop building properties situated northern adjoining Mandapet to Kakinada Road, opposite to Mosque in the limits of second respondent- Corporation. The particulars of shop properties owned by the petitioners are furnished in detail in the affidavit. It is alleged that the petitioners purchased the said properties under different registered sale deeds. It is stated that the respondents had decided to excavate and construct a drain all along the Mandapet to Kakinada Road in the limits of second respondent-Corporation, in between the building properties of the petitioners and the road. For that purpose, the second respondent-Corporation high handedly demolished steps, pails and approach ramps constructed within the sites of the petitioners and in the said place, the second respondent-Corporation excavated drainage canal of 6 feet width and 5 feet depth. The excavation was sufficiently executed as per estimates. On the southern side of the said road, similar drain was excavated and constructed. But, to the surprise of the petitioners, on 6.5.2008, the officials of second respondent-Corporation came to the properties of the petitioners and insisted to vacate the shops saying that they had decided to demolish the building properties to the depth of 5 feet, since the same is required for construction of drain. It is stated that the second respondent-Corporation had already demolished out-steps, pails and approach ramps and excavated sufficiently 6 feet width drain more than the width of drain as was done on the southern side of the road. Since the second respondent-Corporation fixed deadline for two days and threatened to demolish the building properties of the petitioners with police force, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as of now, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of their respective properties and in the process of construction of drain, the second respondent-Corporation had already demolished a portion of their properties. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are living in their respective premises which are sought to be demolished by the second respondent without following the due process of law and if the second respondent-Corporation succeeds in its attempt, the petitioners would be put to irreparable loss. The learned standing counsel for the second respondent-Corporation submitted that the respondents may be directed to follow due process of law if the building properties of the petitioners are required for demolition for the purpose of construction of drainage. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents are directed not to demolish any portion of the building properties of the petitioners bearing door Nos. 12-2-14, 12-2-9, 12-2-7, 12-2-5, 12-2-4, 12-2-3, 12- 2-2, 12-2-1, 12-1-30, 12-1-31, 12-1-32 and 12-2-17, situated northern adjoining Mandapet to Kakinada Road in Ramachandrapuram Municipal limits for the purpose of drain widening, without following due process of law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________ G.CHANDRAIAH. J 07th MAY, 2008 Tsr/Isl. To 1 The Principal Secretary to Municipal Administation and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner, Ramachandrapuram Municipality, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District 3. Two C.Cs. to G.P. for MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High Court buildings, Hyderabad. 4. Two C.D. copies.