Telangana High Court
WP/27920/2005 of A. Appala Narasamma, Vs The Commissioner, on 29 December 2005
MR. JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2005 W.P.No. 27920 of 2005 Between:- G. Appala Narasamma and eleven others. --Petitioners And The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. --Respondents THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO
THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2005
W.P.No. 27920 of 2005
Between:-
G. Appala Narasamma and eleven others.
And
--Petitioners
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam.
--Respondents
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO
W.P.No. 27920 of 2005
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.
:O R D E R:
The petitioners, who are twelve in number, are owners of residential houses inSantapalem village, Chinagadali mandal, which form part of Municipal Corporationof Visakhapatnam (for short ‘MCV’), the sole respondent herein. The petitionersallege that in connection with the formation/widening of 200’ wide road fromHanumanthavaka to Darapalem, the officials of the respondent-Corporation markedthe portion of petitioners’ property and are resorting to evict the petitioners withoutdue process of law. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel forMCV, who does not dispute that there is a proposal to form the road in question.Therefore, it is needless to point out that unless and until the respondent-Corporation resorts to the procedure under Sections 146 or 147 of the HyderabadMunicipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), as made applicable to the MCV,they cannot dispossess the petitioners from their houses. If the petitioners are notwilling to give their consent to part with the possession of the property for wideningof the road, necessarily the respondent-Corporation has to follow the procedureaccording to law. Pending such action, the respondent-Corporation can neitherdispossess the petitioners nor demolish their houses.
The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
____________
29-12-2005pvks/*