IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETTION No.2588 OF 2010 Between: Mohd. Ameer Jani ..... Petitioner And 1. Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, Rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada, Krishna District. & 2 others …Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETTION No. 2588 OF 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in threatening to demolish the petitioner’s house bearing H.No.44-1-8/2, in an extent of 107 square yards, situated in Ward No.33 B, vide New Assessment No.284129, near Ramalayam, Padavalarevu, Gunadala, Vijayawaa, Krishna District, without issuing any notice and without following the due procedure contemplated under law, as being illegal, arbitrary and improper and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps to demolish the petitioner’s house. 2. The petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises bearing H.No.44-1-8/2, in an extent of 107 square yards, situated in Ward No.33 B, vide New Assessment No.284129, near Ramalayam, Padavalarevu, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District, since 1997. He got the said property through family settlement on 12.01.1997 and prior to that, the property was vested in the name of his mother late Smt. Basheerunissa Begum and after demise in 2002, he made a representation to the Municipal Authorities seeking for mutation of his name in the Municipal records and the same was mutated in his name on 23.11.2002. Since then, the petitioner was paying the requisite property tax to the Municipal Corporation without releasing any master plan, without giving any notification and even without acquiring the property under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and without demarcating the master plan, the respondent authorities are intending to form a new road under the scheme of BRTS with a width of 90’ feet, but the respondent authorities are demolishing the houses of the inhabitants of Padavalarevu area as per the whims and fancies of the respondent authorities concerned and the said formation of road is taking diversions as per the influence of the politicians concerned, which acts of the respondent authorities are creating loss and damage to the lives of the people in the locality. The petitioner is residing in the premises in question along with his family members without any interruption or interference from anybody else. The respondent authorities, without issuing any notice and without following the procedure contemplated under law, are illegally and high-handedly taking steps to dispossess the petitioner from the property in question. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is an encroacher of the Government land (Canal Bund Poramboke) and on humanitarian grounds, the respondent – Vijayawada Municipality Corporation offered alternative housing under BSUP Housing Scheme in view of eviction and the other occupants in the locality, except a few including the petitioner, have accepted for the alternative housing and have voluntarily surrendered their encroached portion for the purpose of laying the connecting road from BRTS Road to Karl Marx Road. It is also averred that the petitioner’s tenants availed the alternative housing and they have evicted the petitioner’s house. It is also stated that the petitioner, without having any legal right and without receiving any eviction notice or any coercive action from the respondent and after having availed the alternative housing or his tenants, unnecessarily approached this Court with false allegations and in order to protect his encroached property and to defeat the public purpose. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that in similar matter, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the respondents permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents for providing alternative housing with vast extended to least affected persons in implementation of the BRTS Scheme. If such representation is made, the respondents may consider the same. Therefore, she submits that this Writ Petition is clearly covered by the order passed by this Court. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of an extent of 107 square yards of land, wherein he got constructed a house and the respondent authorities wanted to evict the lease premises and remove the structures made by the petitioner and it is also submitted that there are several persons like that of the petitioners who are already evicted and pursuant to the Scheme involved by the Municipal Corporation, they have been provided by alternative housing and in the instant case, the petitioner premises and the structures made by the petitioner were also demolished after duly evicting the tenants therein and, therefore, the petitioner’s case also may be considered for providing an alternative housing. Therefore, the Writ Petition may be disposed of with the following direction. 5. The petitioner is directed taking note of the fact averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s structure are already demolished and the tenants therein were already evicted and the petitioner is no more in existence in the premises in question. Therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a representation within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of copy of the order requesting the respondents to allot housing for the petitioner and in which case, the respondents are directed to consider the same for allotting house to the petitioner so as to have the shelter for him. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date: 23rd December, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETTION No.2588 OF 2010 December 23, 2010. KL