All these three writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order in view of similarity of facts and also common questions of law arising in all these writ petitions.

2. The petitioners herein aggrieved by the action of the respondents in trying to proceed with the demolition activity of the houses specified in these writ petitions had approached this court praying for positive directions.

3. In all these writ petitions notice before admission had been ordered. Statusquo for a limited period was granted and subsequent thereto the same was being extended.

4. Sri Polisetti Radha Krishna, the learned standing counsel had taken notice to file counter-affidavits in all these matters and opposed these matters.

5. Sri Nalin Kumar, Sri Giri Krishna and Sri B.Parmeshwar Rao representing Sri Ranapratap were heard on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Polisetti Radhakrishna, the learned standing counsel for the Municipality was heard on behalf of the respondents.

6. Sri Nalin Kumar, the learned counsel would maintain that the stand taken by the writ petitioners is that it is only 80 feet road, whereas the concerned municipality had taken stand that it is 100 feet road and hence rest of the road margin had been encroached. The learned counsel would also maintain that there is a dispute whether a particular piece of land is in fact a road or private property of the citizen it would be always just and necessary to put the party on notice before proceeding with any demolition activity. The learned counsel would also maintain that though Section 192 sub-section (2) of A.P. Municipalities Act, (hereinafter referred to for short as the Act for the purpose of convenience) may not be applicable by its four corners in principle, this prohibition in a way supports his contention. While further elaborating the submissions, the learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this court in Pilli Lakshmana Rao and others v. Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Challapalle and others1 and would maintain that in-as-much as it is an action involving civil consequences, the principles of natural justice to be followed and even if there is no specific statutory provision in-as-much-as general principles are applicable, the municipality in question is bound to issue notice before further proceeding with the demolition activity.

7. Sri Giri Krishna and Sri B. Parmeshwar Rao representing Sri Rana Pratap also made similar submissions on the same lines adopting the submissions made by Sri Nalin Kumar.

8. On the contrary, Sri Polisetti Radha Krishna, the learned standing counsel representing the Municipality in question would maintain that this is not the case where any disputed question of fact is there. The learned counsel demonstrated before this court with the approved layouts and would submit that in the light of the same, there cannot be any doubt or any controversy whatsoever that the road is 1 00 feet road only. The learned counsel would also maintain that in such a case, it is needless to say that these parties who approached the court are encroachers, may be the parties might have encroached a portion of the property: In such a case to say that even such encroachers who had encroached upon the road margins would be entitled to notice, the local bodies would be placed into serious inconvenience. The counsel would also further maintain that Section 192 subsection (2) of the Act specifies under what circumstances in such cases notices to be given and when the statutory right ordains particularly mode, horizon of principles of natural justice cannot be widened since such principles can be said to be curtailed or restricted by virtue of the said statutory restriction.

9. Heard the learned counsel on record. Perused the material available on record.

10. WP.No.11012 of 2006 is filed by the petitioners for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish or deal with private properties of the petitioners bearing H.Nos.1-6-7