1. These three writ petitions are disposed of by a common order in view of the common issue involved in them. In these cases, the petitioners challenged the action of the respondents Municipalities in highhandedly demolishing their property without following any provisions of law and without paying any compensation.

W.P. No.13603 of 2003:

2. The petitioner is the owner and occupier of the building bearing door No.7-6-23, situated in Narsapur Municipality and he was paying taxes regularly. A part of the said building is used for his residence and the other part is used for his clinic, since he is a medical practitioner. There was a road to the northern side of the building. The Narasapur Municipality wanted to widen the road and put marking on the houses of either side of the road. When the Narsapur Municipality did not pay any compensation, the neighbours of the petitioner’s building filed W.P. No.6430 of 2003 before this Court. This Court passed an order on 10.04.2003, after hearing both sides, and the said order was a general order made applicable to all but not confined only to the parties in the writ petition. The petitioner was under the impression that the respondents would follow the said order in respect of his property also. But, on 24.06.2003, respondents, without issuing any notice, highhandedly and arbitrarily entered his premises and demolished a part of his building. He stated that he did not give any consent or agreed to remove the building. In the process of demolition, the furniture and other articles in the clinic of the petitioner were badly damaged. The officials of the Municipality, though are public servants, took law into their hands and demolished the building indiscriminately. Even though markings were made on the houses of both sides of the road, buildings on one side of the road were only demolished in order to help the other side owners. Thus the Municipality acted arbitrarily. In those circumstances, the petitioner challenged the action of the Narsapur Municipality for taking possession of his land to an extent of nearly 60 square yards and sought compensation for the damage caused to the furniture and other articles in the building to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. He sent a representation on 27.06.2003 to the respondents by registered post with acknowledgement due and though they have received the same on 28.06.2003 but no reply was given.

3. No counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents even after ten years. This Court, noticing that similar type of cases are coming before the Court frequently, by an order dated 31.03.2011, directed the Chief Secretary to Government to file an affidavit stating whether a circular as directed by this Court incase of Bantharam Bichappa and Others District Collector, R.R. District 2000 (4) ALD 206 was issued, and if it was issued, whether any action was taken against those officials who have not complied with the same. This Court while passing the said order also noticed a decision in Keshav Prashad V. Commissioner and Special Officer, MCH, Hyderabad and others 2001 (2) ALD 182 (DB), wherein a Division bench of this Court, while dealing with the case of demolition of a construction for the purpose of road widening, observed that in view of the Constitutional mandate under Article 300-A, the right to property cannot be taken away except in accordance with law.

4. Pursuant to the said orders of this Court, the Chief Secretary to Government filed an affidavit on 26.12.2012 stating that the Government issued G.O.Ms. NO.243, MA & UD (JI) Dept., dated 28.06.2011, issuing instructions to take action strictly as per the judgments of this Court in cases relating to acquisition of private properties and not to enter into private properties except through due process of law. Those instructions were also issued to Secretariat Departments/Head of Departments/District Collectors directing to issue necessary instructions to all the Subordinate officers to follow the above d