Telangana High Court
WA/1010/2005 of Sredharala Joga Rao, Vs Anakapalle Municipality, on 26 December 2005
SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 1010 of 2005 Between: Sredharala Joga Rao and others. ..... APPELLANTS AND Anakapalle Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Anakapalle, Vishakapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT ::JUDGMENT:: Counsel for the
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDYWRIT APPEAL NO: 1010 of 2005Between:Sredharala Joga Rao and others...... APPELLANTSANDAnakapalle Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner,Anakapalle, Vishakapatnam District......RESPONDENT::JUDGMENT::Counsel for the Appellants :MR.V.VENKATARAMANACounsel for the Respondent : MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY26th December, 2005
Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ
This appeal is directed against order dated 12.5.2005 passed by the learned SingleJudge in Writ Petition No. 11221 of 2005, whereby he refused to quash the noticesissued by the Commissioner of Anakapalle Municipality under Sections 171 to 179of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) for utilisation of the parcels ofland belonging to the appellants for widening of the road.
A perusal of the record shows that in the notices dated 5.5.2005 issued by theCommissioner it was mentioned that the appellants had given undertaking tohandover a particular portion of their properties free of cost to the Municipality for thepurpose of formation of Master Plan Road. They had done so in order to facilitate thegrant of building permission. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the undertakingsgiven by them, the authority concerned had issued building permissions in favour ofthe petitioners and, thereafter, they constructed the buildings.
The appellants questioned the notices issued by the Commissioner byasserting that the municipal authorities were utilising their land without acquiring thesame in accordance with law.
The learned Single Judge referred to the undertakings given by the petitioners andgift deeds executed by them and disposed of the writ petition by directing themunicipal authorities to furnish copies of the undertakings to the petitioners(appellants herein) with liberty to them to pursue their remedies before the CivilCourt.
On the last date of hearing i.e. on 19.12.2005, learned counsel for the appellantsmade a request for adjournment to enable his clients to file additional affidavit alongwith the permission granted by the Municipality for constructing building. Thereafter,appellant No.1 filed his affidavit along with a photostat copy of the sanctioned plan.
Learned counsel for the Municipality has produced Xerox copy of theagreement signed by Sri Koyalada Sankara Rao (Appellant No.10) who gave anundertaking to the Municipality to handover 35.76 Sq. Mtrs., of land for the purposeof widening of road. According to the learned counsel, other appellants had enteredinto similar agreements for handing over possession of specified land to the Municipality for being utilised for road widening programme. Learned counsel saysthat only that portion of the land of the appellants will be utilised for road wideningprogramme in respect of which they had given undertaking at the time of grant ofbuilding permissions.
Learned counsel for the appellants complains that municipal authorities are seekingto deprive his clients of land in excess of what was specified in the undertakinggiven at the time of grant of building permission.
In the context of the aforementioned statement of the learned counsel for theappellants, we enquired from learned counsel for the Municipality whether excessland is sought to be used for the purpose of road widening. In reply, Shri S.Nageswara Reddy gave out that if excess land is to be utilised for such purpose,then the same will be acquired in accordance with the procedure established by law.
In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, we do notfind any valid ground or justification to interfere with the order under challenge anddispose of the appeal with the direction that the respondent-Municipality shall befree to take possession and utilise the land for road widening purpose in accordancewith the undertakings given by the appellants. However, if excess land is to beutilised for such programme, then the same will have to be acquired by thecompetent authority in accordance with law.
G.S. SINGHVI, CJ
Date: 26[th] December, 2005
Pnb / svs/ vtv
R. SUBHASH REDDY,J