ORDER : Kiranmayee Mandava, J. Heard Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Municipality, Administration & Urban Development, and Sri Singaluri Shanti Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenging the action of the 4 th respondent in forcibly dispossessing the petitioner from his private patta land located in Sy. No. 285/1 of Kattamanchi Village, Chittoor Mandal, for the purpose of laying a public road, without following the due procedure of law as enunciated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the instant Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the subject land is required for a public purpose, the respondents are at liberty to take recourse to law after paying compensation and acquiring the property in accordance with the Act, however the respondents are attempting to high-handedly take possession of the petitioner’s land without any notice. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others , [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347] 5. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri Singaluri Shanti Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 4 th respondent, placed before the Court a copy of the instructions received by him in the case. A perusal of the same reflects that the respondent Corporation did not attempt to encroach upon any private land, nor has entered the petitioner’s property. The officials of the respondent Corporation are carrying out a survey to ascertain the condition of the road and the alignment, with the sanctioned Mater Plan. 6. It is further reflects that at any point of time, if any portion of the petitioner’s land is required for public use, the respondent Corporation would follow the due process of law as contemplated under the provisions of ‘Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and take possession of the land only after completing the acquisition process. In the said process, if any survey is to be conducted, the same shall not be construed as dispossession by the petitioner. 7. In the said process, if any survey is to be conducted, the same shall not be construed as dispossession by the petitioner. 7. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents to follow the due procedure contemplated under law, in the event the subject property is required for any public purpose. Further, the respondents shall issue prior notice to the petitioner if any survey is proposed to be conducted in respect of the subject property. 8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.