WP/12015/2005 of P.Ramakrishna Sastry, Vs The Govt of A.P, Rep by its Prl.Secretary,Secretary Municipa on 31 December 2008

O R D E R:

At the request of both the counsel, appearing for the petitioner aswell as the respondents, the main writ petition itself has been taken upfor final disposal at the stage of interlocutory application.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the building

bearing Municipal Door No.27-1-1448 (Ward No.22, MunicipalAssessment No.19326 and 19326-A), situated in Karl Marx Road (EluruRoad), Vijayawada, Krishna District and he is paying the property tax tothe municipal authorities. While so, the 2[nd] respondent-Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, Vijayawadasubmitted proposals on 27.12.2001 to the 1[st] respondent-PrincipalSecretary, Municipal Administration and Urban DevelopmentDepartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad for issuance of necessaryalterations to the Master Plan showing the road width as 120 ft. from thePolice Control Room to Ramavarapadu Junction (Jagjivan Ram Circle),Karl Marx (Eluru) Road, Vijayawada. It is stated that as the existingMaster Plan road is only 60 ft., it was decided to widen from 60 ft. to 120ft. and called for the objections and suggestions from the public. It isfurther stated that the House owners association filed objections, andwithout considering the said objections and overruling the saidobjections, a notification has been issued by the Government videproceedings Memo No.1302112/2001-I, M.A. dated 22.03.2002 foralternation of the Master Plan, altering the existing 60 ft. road to 120 ft.wide road. It is further stated that the petitioner along with others filedW.P.6273/2002 on the file of this Court which was disposed of on10.07.2002, observing that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the saidnotification with regard to widening of the road in the Master Plan, it isopen for them to challenge the same before appropriate authority.

It is further stated that the Government wanted to widen theexisting road from 60 ft. to 80 ft. and the authorities demolished thebuilding of the petitioner on 16.10.2002 for formation of 80 ft. road. It isstated that for the said demolition, the petitioner has lost an extent of 148sq.yards along with structures. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled tocompensation for 148 sq.yards. It is further stated that the petitioner filed W.P.252/2003 before this Court and the same was disposed of by orderdated 07.01.2003, holding that if any land of the petitioner is taken up forwidening of the road, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. It isstated that the Government is trying to acquire the land of the petitionerwithout paying any compensation or without initiating any proceedingsunder Land Acquisition Act.

The 3[rd] respondent filed counter denying and disputing theallegations made in the writ petition. It is stated that in view of trafficvolume on Karl Marx Road, the 2[nd] respondent has taken up the processof widening of the Karl Marx Road as per the prescribed procedure. It isstated that the entire process of widening of Karl Marx Road has beentaken up and completed by the 2[nd] respondent alone and therefore, theVijayawada Municipal Corporation has no way connected with the caseand also not competent to pay any compensation as alleged by thepetitioner.

Conclusion

Respondents 2, 4 and 5 filed a common counter, contending thatthe Government issued Memo No.13021/12/2001-1 M.A. dated22.03.2002, publishing a draft notification for variation of the Master Planto designate the Karl Marx Road at 120 ft. wide and the said notificationhas been published in A.P.Gazette dated 23.03.2002, requiring thepublic to file their objections for the proposed Master Plan road. Withregard to the allegations made by the petitioner, it is submitted that ageneral notice was published in the Gazette on 23.03.2002, calling forobjections for the proposed amendment to the Master Plan, proposingfor widening the existing road to 120 ft. road. The objections of thepetitioner and others were also considered and the Government issuedfinal notification in G.O.Ms.No.430 MA, dated 23.09.2002, revising theMaster Plan of Karl Marx road as 120 ft. With regard to the demolition ofthe structures and taken up the land of the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the respondents did not demolish the structures of thepetitioner at any time nor possession was taken. The allegations arenothing, but a story created by the petitioner. Thus, the respondentshave seriously disputing the contentions of the petitioner. It is furtherstated that the property of the petitioner, proposed to acquire to theextent of 228.51 sq.yards along with the effected structure area is RCC,Ground Floor 11710.80 sq.ft. and First Floor 738.56 sq.ft. Accordingly, arequisition is made to the Land Acquisition Officer to take up the landalong with structures. If the structures of the petitioner are demolishedby the respondents, there will not be any structures existing on the landof the petitioner.

In view of the counter allegations, I am of the opinion that merelybecause of the Master Plan, the existing road has been widening fromexisting width to 120 ft, it cannot be said that the respondents areentitled to forcibly take away any extent of the land or the structureswithout paying any compensation. It is stated that some awardproceedings are pending and if any award is passed, on payment ofcompensation alone, it is open for the respondents to take away anyland or structures of the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts of the case, the Writ Petition isdisposed of, directing the respondents not to enter and take away anyportion of the land along with structures of the petitioner, without payingany compensation. If the land and the structures of the petitioner arerequired, it is always open for the respondents to acquire the same forthe purpose of widening the road from existing width to 120 ft. by payingcompensation, either by way of private negotiations or in accordancewith law. No costs.

___________________

V.ESWARAIAH,J

Dated: 31.12.2008Dsr

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

To

1 The Govt of A.P, Rep by its Prl.Secretary,Secretary MunicipaAdministration and Urban Development Department, Secretaraiat, Hyderabad. 2 The Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalgiri Urban DevelopmentAuthority, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Rep by its Vice-Chairman.

3 The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

4 The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 5 The Spl. Dy Collector, Land Acquisition, The Vijayawada- Guntur-Tenali- Mangalagiri Urban - Development Authority, Vijayawada, KrishnaDistrict.

6.2CCs to

7.2CD copies