Telangana High Court
WP/24650/2004 of B. Satish, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 24650 of 2004 Between: B. Satish, S/o. Rama Chandra Naidu, R/o. 19-3-7A, Renigunta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO : 24650 of 2004
Between:
B. Satish, S/o. Rama Chandra Naidu,
R/o. 19-3-7A, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2 The Municipal Commissioner, Tirupathi Municipality, Tirupathi.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2[nd] respondent in laying of the Road in my land of thepetitioner in Ward No. 19, in Sy.No. 3/2C-2, to an extent of 272 sq. yards/2,448 Sq. Feet situated atUppangi Harijanawada, Tirupathi without following due process of law, as bad,arbitrary, and contrary to law and also offends Art. 14, 21 and 300-A of theConstitution of India.
For the Petitioner: MS.M.VIDYAVATHI, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: GP for General Administration For the Respondent No.2: MR.S.I.NEWTON, SC for Tirupathy Municipality The Court at the stage of admission made the following :
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:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleaderfor General Administration and the learned Standing Counsel for secondrespondent-Municipality and with their consent the writ petition is disposed of atthe stage of admission.
The petitioner claims to be owner of 272 square yards of land situated inSurvey No.3/2C-2 of Uppangi Harijanawada, Tirupathi. His grievance is thatwithout initiating land acquisition proceedings and without paying anycompensation to him, the second respondent-Municipality is trying to lay a roadthrough his land, which is illegal and contrary to law.
A Division Bench of this Court dealing with large number of cases (W.P.No.21198 of 1997 and batch, dated 03-02-1998) where for the purpose of roadwidening, the Revenue, Panchayat Raj and Municipal authorities sought todemolish the houses or structures abutting the road, issued certain guidelineswhich are as under:
1. Where a property is required for public purpose viz., widening ofroads or for any other purpose, the authorities straightawaycannot take law into their hands and jump into the premises,dispossess or evict the occupants or demolish the property.roads or for any other purpose, the authorities straightawaycannot take law into their hands and jump into the premises,dispossess or evict the occupants or demolish the property.
2. If the authorities concerned want to take action foreviction/dispossession of the occupants or demolition, theyshall issue 60 days’ prior notice notifying as to the nature of theproperty, the property to whom it belongs and the proposedaction calling for explanation/objections if any from theoccupants. On receipt of such objections, if there is anyobjection as to the ownership of the property, the authoritieseviction/dispossession of the occupants or demolition, theyshall issue 60 days’ prior notice notifying as to the nature of theproperty, the property to whom it belongs and the proposedaction calling for explanation/objections if any from theoccupants. On receipt of such objections, if there is anyobjection as to the ownership of the property, the authorities should determine the extent of encroachment of unauthorizedoccupation and also determine whether the property in questionbelongs to Government/any other local self Government orauthority or the occupants and pass appropriate orders withinthree months from the date of receipt of the objections, afteraffording an opportunity of being heard to the occupants.
3. In case where demolition of private property has already beenmade, the authorities shall determine the damages on the basisof the assessment to be made by the Engineer of the Roads andBuildings Department and disburse the amount of damagesquantified forthwith.made, the authorities shall determine the damages on the basisof the assessment to be made by the Engineer of the Roads andBuildings Department and disburse the amount of damagesquantified forthwith.
4. If the demolition is in respect of local bodies’ Government property,the question of damages does not arise. In such an event, theoccupant shall be entitled to remove the material used for theconstruction.the question of damages does not arise. In such an event, theoccupant shall be entitled to remove the material used for theconstruction.
5. In case of demolition of private property, the authorities concernedshall determine the loss caused to the occupants on the basis ofthe assessment to be made by the Engineer of R & BDepartment and on such assessment of damages, theconcerned authorities shall take appropriate steps to disbursethe amount quantified forthwith.shall determine the loss caused to the occupants on the basis ofthe assessment to be made by the Engineer of R & BDepartment and on such assessment of damages, theconcerned authorities shall take appropriate steps to disbursethe amount quantified forthwith.
6. If there is any claim for grant/assessment of the property, theconcerned authorities shall consider the same in accordancewith law taking into consideration the eligibility and theentitlement of occupants, after making enquiry and till suchclaim is decided, there shall be status-quo obtaining as on todayregarding the structures.concerned authorities shall consider the same in accordancewith law taking into consideration the eligibility and theentitlement of occupants, after making enquiry and till suchclaim is decided, there shall be status-quo obtaining as on todayregarding the structures.
The learned Government Pleader for General Administration appearingon behalf of the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for thesecond respondent-Municipality do not dispute the legal position.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents tofollow the guidelines issued in the above mentioned judgment. No costs.
______________
N.V. RAMANA, J
Date: 29-12-2004
Svv
To
1 The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2 The Municipal Commissioner, Tirupathi Municipality, Tirupathi.
3 Two CCs. to the Government Pleader for General Administration, High Court Buildings, A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).
4 Two CD copies.