ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the unilateral action of the 2 nd respondent in trying to mark up and measure the property of the petitioner for the purpose of widening the road. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has constructed a shop and has been running the business since last four decades. It is submitted that the petitioner’s father filed a suit vide OS.No.277 of 1975 against the defendant who is 2 nd respondent herein challenging the demand notice calling upon the plaintiff therein to demolish the alleged encroachment. It is submitted that the III Additional District Munsif, Guntur had decreed the suit vide judgment dated 31.12.1978. It is submitted that the learned Judge had also recorded in the judgment that the defendant did not produced any material to prove that there are any encroachments committed by the plaintiff therein. It is submitted that the petitioner filed WP.No.28307 of 2024 when the 2 nd respondent initiated similar process for taking over the property without issuance of any notice or paying any compensation. 3. It is submitted that the said writ petition was disposed off on 31.01.2025 directing the respondents to follow the due process of law by following the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 4. It is submitted that the 2 nd respondent has now resorted to the old tricks of sending their men marking the property of the petitioner. It is also submitted that a notice under Sections 456 and 596 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 is issued to the petitioner on 17.10.2025 calling upon him to vacate the premises and the petitioner submitted reply on 25.10.2025. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has constructed his shop within the boundaries of his property and as such there is no encroachment as claimed or alleged by the 2 nd respondent. It is also submitted that the 2 nd respondent is in the process of demolishing the shop of petitioner for widening the road and has been pressurizing the petitioner to accept the TDR bond inspite of complying the orders of this Court passed in WP.No.28307 of 2024. 6. It is also submitted that the 2 nd respondent is in the process of demolishing the shop of petitioner for widening the road and has been pressurizing the petitioner to accept the TDR bond inspite of complying the orders of this Court passed in WP.No.28307 of 2024. 6. The learned standing counsel for the 2 nd respondent submits that the respondent shall pass appropriate orders in pursuance of the notice issued. It is also submitted that the 2 nd respondent would have to determine the extent of land encroached by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondent shall determine the extent of land encroached if any by the petitioner and take appropriate action against such encroachment and if the property of the petitioner is required for utilizing the same for widening of road, the respondent shall follow the due process of law. 7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for 2 nd respondent the writ petition is disposed off at the admission stage making it clear to the 2 nd respondent to conduct a proper survey in the presence of the petitioner and the petitioner shall submit a copy of the title document to establish his ownership over the property, the 2 nd respondent shall determine the boundaries of the petitioner as per the sale deed/title document submitted by the petitioner and it is also made clear that if the property of the petitioner is required for the purpose of widening of the road the 2 nd respondent would have to adhere the procedure as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off without costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.