Telangana High Court
WP/33844/2010 of G. Jagadeeswara Reddy Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporataion, on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.33844 OF 2010 BETWEEN: 1. G. Jagadeeswara Reddy and another PETITIONERS And The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. V. Subrahmanya Narasu Counsel for
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
WRIT PETITION No.33844 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. G. Jagadeeswara Reddy and another
PETITIONERS
And
The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam.
RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. V. Subrahmanya Narasu Counsel for the respondent: Sri N. Ranga Reddy The Court made the following order:
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:
The writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with theconsent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. RangaReddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
The petitioners claim that an extent of Acs.1.50 cents situated inS.No.46 of Mddilapalem village, Visakhapatnam District is theirancestral property, which was purchased by their grand-father under aregistered document dated 25.11.1930. Out of the said land, afterdisposing of some extent of land, the petitioners have retained 500 sq.yards and the same is in their possession. The petitioners complainthat the respondent without having any manner of right has starteddigging the land for the purpose of making some constructions. Thelegal notice dated 3.08.2010 calling upon the respondent not toproceed with the construction did not yield any result. Complaining thatthe respondent cannot either dispossess or interfere with theirpossession without following due process of law, the petitioners havefiled this writ petition.
Indisputably, the petitioners are the owners and possessors ofthe land admeasuring an extent of 500 sq. yds in S.No.46 ofMaddilapalem village, Visakhapatnam District. The respondent hasnot initiated any action either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 orunder any other provision of law to enter the said land or making anyconstructions thereon. It is well settled that no person shall be deprivedof his property except by due process of law.
In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing therespondent not to make any constructions on the aforesaid land or interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the saidland without following due process of law.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________
NOUSHAD ALI, J.31[st] December, 2010Js.