JUDGMENT Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. - Heard Sri T. D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri Ch. Naga Mehar Baba, learned counsel for the petitioners on record, and Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing respondent No.2-Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation. 2. Notice has been accepted by the learned AGP for Municipal Administration, representing respondent No.1. 3. On 03.01.2023 Sri G. Naresh Kumar was granted time to obtain instructions. He submits that instructions have been received and in view of the stand taken by the 2nd respondent, recording the same, the petition may be disposed of. 4. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being decided at this stage. 5. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: '...to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the Highhanded acts of the 2nd Respondent in trying to demolish the dwelling house of the Petitioners in an extent of 40 Sq Yards at D.No.5/104, Nuruddinpeta, Machilipatnam without issuing prior notice is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 not to interfere and demolish the Thatched House in an extent of 40 Sq Yards at D.No.5/104, Nuruddinpeta, Machilipatnam, Krishna District except due process of law and pass such other order or orders.....' 6. Sri T. D. Phani Kumar submits that the petitioners are in occupation of an area nearly 40 square yards at the street No.108, Ward No.5 at Nuruddinpeta, Machilipatnam, nearby slaughter house, which is assessed for property tax vide Assessment No.1070034773 and they are making payment of property tax regularly. One of the neighbours of the petitioners filed a civil suit in O.S.No.294 of 2012 with respect to the same property impleading the present Municipal Corporation, the then Municipality, as defendants and the said suit was dismissed on 08.08.2017. In spite thereof, on 31.12.2022 the authorities of the 2nd respondent came on the spot to demolish the petitioners' thatched house without following any due process of law, inasmuch as any notice was not served. 7. In spite thereof, on 31.12.2022 the authorities of the 2nd respondent came on the spot to demolish the petitioners' thatched house without following any due process of law, inasmuch as any notice was not served. 7. Sri G. Naresh Kumar, on the basis of the written instructions, submits that in fact the petitioners have encroached to a certain extent on the road margin and in that regard a notice was issued in the year 2012, but in view of the pendency of the suit O.S.No.294 of 2012, the same was not implemented and the suit filed by the petitioners' neighbor was dismissed on 08.08.2017. He submits that now there is a proposal for formation of C.C. road by converting from metal road and if the encroachments are not removed, the construction of the metal road is difficult. He further submits that the encroachments will be removed by following due process of law, and though the notice was issued in the year 2012, but since more than 10 years have already passed, the 2nd respondent shall serve copy of the same notice again or shall issue fresh notice. 8. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, without observing anything on the merits of the case of the parties as to whether the petitioners are the encroachers or not, this writ petition is being disposed of with the direction that the 2nd respondent shall follow due process of law with respect to subject property and against the petitioners, if so required for formation of C.C. road, including giving of notice, as stated by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.