IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 8744 of 2008 Between: 1 M.Pooja W/o.Late Kamesh R/o.57-1-69-70 Subash Nagar Kancharapalem,Visakhapatnam 2 Sk.Madeena S/o.Late Sk.Moulala R/o.38-40-101/1 Marripalem,Visakhapatnam 3 Sk.Ali S/o.Late Sk.Moulala R/o.38-40-101/1 Marripalem,Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONERS AND The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam Rep.by its Commissioner .....RESPONDENT 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Corporation in trying to demolish the structures of the petitioners ie houses bearing D.No.57-1-69,70 (Assessment No.71168) at Subashnagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam of the 1st petitioner and D.No.38-40- 101/1(Assessment No.69962) at Marripalem,Visakhapatnam of the 2nd& 3rd petitioners as being the illegal arbitrary unjust violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the structures belonging to the petitioners without due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.Viswanadham Counsel for the Respondent : Sri N.Ranga Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: In [aphc1]this case, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent-Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation has been seeking to acquire their houses [aphc2]for the purpose of widening the existing road, without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the respondent-Corporation has been offering meager amounts as compensation for the houses sought to be taken possession of by them. It is further asserted that the value offered by the Corporation is, in fact, less than the value prevailing for the land as also the value fixed by the revenue establishment of the State Government and, hence, the petitioners are not interested in agreeing to receive the compensation offered by the respondent- Corporation and deliver possession of their houses. It is needless to observe that the Municipal Corporation cannot take possession of the property owned by the citizens without recourse to law. The respondent is, therefore, directed to follow the procedure available either under Section 146 read with 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and acquire the houses in question and without adopting such a procedure, they should not insist upon the petitioners to part with the possession of their houses. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 21st April 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} [aphc1] [aphc2]