Telangana High Court
WP/26466/2006 of K. Ravi Kumar, Vs L.B. Nagar Municipality, on 29 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.26466 of 2006 Date: 29.12.2006 Between: 1. K.Ravi Kumar, s/o Krishna Murthy, aged 36 years, r/o Gaddiannaram village, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioners. And 1. L.B.Nagar Municipality, rep. By its Commissioner, Ranga Reddy
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.26466 of 2006
Date: 29.12.2006
Between:
1. K.Ravi Kumar, s/o Krishna Murthy,
aged 36 years, r/o Gaddiannaram village, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and another.
… Petitioners.
And
1. L.B.Nagar Municipality, rep. By its Commissioner, Ranga Reddy District and another. Ranga Reddy District and another.
… Respondents.
* * *
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This court ordered notice before admission on 20.12.2006and status quo was granted for a limited period and subsequentthereto the same was extended for a further limited period.
2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus or any otherappropriate writ declaring action of the respondents in purportingto consume/utilize any part of the plots of the petitionersadmeasuring 548 square yards and 612 square yards respectively situated in survey Nos.145 (part) and 149 (part) of Kharmanghatvillage, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, withoutacquiring the land of the petitioners under the relevant law andwithout payment of compensation amount to the petitioners, asarbitrary and illegal; and consequently direct the respondents toforbear from consuming/utilizing any part of the plots of thepetitioners for the purported widening of the road which is situatedon the eastern side of the plots of the petitioners, without followingthe procedure laid down under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 andpass such other suitable orders.
3. It is stated that the first petitioner is the absolute owner andpossessor of open plot admeasuring 548 square yards in surveyNos.145 and 149 situated at Kharmanghat village, SaroornagarMandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same undera registered sale deed bearing document No.5605 of 1999. It isalso stated that the second petitioner along with her sisters areabsolute owners and possessors of open plot admeasuring 612square yards in survey Nos. 145 and 149 situated at Kharmanghatvillage, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, havingpurchased the same under a registered sale deed bearingdocument No.5606 of 1999. It is also further stated that the firstrespondent caused dumping of road metal on the site of thepetitioners and on 13.12.2006 the labour engaged by the firstrespondent commenced clearing and marking alignment of theroad which is coming into petitioners’ plots upto a width of about20 feet.
4. The main grievance of the writ petitioners is that withoutfollowing due process of law the respondents are carrying with itsactivity. It is needless to say that the respondents are bound tofollow due process of law before taking of any further activity inrelation to the subject matter of the writ petition.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing therespondents not to disturb the possession of the petitionersrelating to subject matter of the writ petition unless and until dueprocess of law is followed. No order as to costs.
Date: December 29, 2006.BSB
__________________
(P.S.NARAYANA, J.)