WP/42694/2015 of Md.Guljar Ahmed, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal on 31 December 2015

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION No.42694 of 2015

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief/s:- “….to issue a Writ order or direction, more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents in trying to demolish the portion ofthe writ petitioner's property bearing H.No.22/311A,311B and311C of Karwanpet, Adoni town and Mandal, Kurnool Districtwithout issuing any notice by following due process of law asillegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural Justiceand consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not toproceed with demolishing the writ petitioner's propertywithout following due process of law, and pass such otherorder or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstancesof the case.”

(Reproduced Verbatim)

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the writpetitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for therespondents 2 and 3. I have perused the material record.

The grievance of the writ petitioner and the submissions on hisbehalf are that the respondents are trying to demolish his propertybearing H.No.22/311A, 311B and 311C of Karwanpet, Adoni Townand Mandal illegally and arbitrarily without following the procedureestablished by law and that the respondents had also highhandedlymade markings on his property for the purpose of demolition for roadwidening and that, therefore, he is obliged to file the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, while asserting thesubmissions in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, wouldsubmit that the subject matter is squarely covered by W.P.No.42019 of2015 and, therefore, requests for disposing the writ petition by passingan order similar to the one that was passed in the aforementioned writpetition.

The learned standing counsel would submit that no coercivesteps for demolition of the subject property of the petitioner would betaken without following the due procedure. It is also his submissionthat if ultimately it is found on an enquiry that the property is the privateproperty of the petitioner, necessary steps for acquisition would betaken as required under law. It is also his submission that for givingmarkings for the proposed road widening, no permission is needed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply would submit thatif a direction is given to the respondents to follow the procedureestablished by law before resorting to any coercive action likedemolition of the property of the petitioner, the ends of justice would bemet.

Recording the submissions, the writ petition is disposed ofdirecting the respondents not to take any coercive action against thesubject property of the petitioner including demolition of any portion ofthe said property except in strict accordance with the procedureestablished by law and without acquiring the required extent ofproperty, if necessary, as contemplated under law. There shall be noorder as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in thewrit petition shall stand dismissed.

______________________

M.Seetharama Murti, J

31[st] December, 2015cbs

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

cbs

WRIT PETITION No.42694 of 2015

31[st] December, 2015