WP/24559/2006 of Venkina Veera Raghavendra rao Vs Tanuku Municipality , Rep. by its Commissioner, on 22 December 2006

Conclusion

ORDER:

1. The matter is coming up for admission today.

2. On 27-11-2006 Sri S.Nageswar Reddy, thelearned Standing Counsel had taken notice andrequested time to get instructions and the matter wasadjourned to 4-12-2006 and subsequent thereto to 11-12-2006 and the matter is appearing today.

3. The Writ Petition is filed for a writ of mandamusor any other appropriate writ declaring the action of therespondent in not acting upon the recommendations ofthe Sub-Collector, West Godavari District endorsed on therepresentation of the petitioners as per the rules ofA.P.Municipalities Act as illegal, arbitrary, unjust andviolative of the principles of natural justice andconsequently to direct the respondent to act inaccordance with law to show the approach road to the petitioners building and to grant such other suitable relief.4. It is stated that the petitioners are the absoluteowners of the property admeasuring 484 sq. yards eachsituate at S.No.30/1 of Sajjapuram, 31[st] Ward, now 28[th]Ward under Tanuku Municipality having been purchasedthrough registered sale deeds and they had entered into adevelopment agreement for construction of a commercialcomplex in the said site and such they had applied forconstruction permission to the respondent. Therespondent had approved the application of thepetitioners in B.A.No.107/2005 dated 10-6-2005 forconstruction of cellar, Ground + 3 floors as per theconditions of B.P.No.63/2005 and as such the petitionershad completed the construction of the building. It is furtherstated that the land is very near to the four road junctioni.e., Rashtrapathi Road, Station road and coaxial road andthe traffic is very heavy at this junction and as such theconstruction of flyover was proposed there. It is alsostated that the road became very dangerous for thepedestrians and also the vehicles and some unauthorizedpersons are keeping their taxis on the road causingobstruction to the traffic and closing the way to thepetitioners building. The petitioners made arepresentation to the Sub-Collector, West Godavari in thisregard for taking necessary action for removal of theobstruction. The Sub-Collector, West Godavari District had recommended for removal of obstruction and forshifting of taxi stand and also directed to show theapproach road to the said building. It is also further statedthat in spite of the recommendation of the Sub-Collectorthe respondent is not acting in accordance with the rulesdue to some political threat. It is also stated that therespondent had issued occupancy certificate to thepetitioners on 3-11-2006 in proceedingsR.O.C.No.2121/2006.F.1. It is further stated that eventhough the petitioners got occupancy certificate they donot have approach road to their building and as theobstruction is on the Government land the petitioners hadapproached the concerned authorities for appropriateaction and in spite of recommendation referred to suprano further action is being initiated. Certain other furtherdifficulties also had been explained in the affidavit filed insupport of the Writ Petition.

5. In the light of the facts and circumstancesexplained in detail, this Court is of the considered opinionthat the Writ Petition be disposed of directing therespondent to look into the grievance of the petitionersand further proceed in accordance with law keeping inview the recommendations said to have been made bythe Sub-Collector, West Godavari District and takeappropriate decision within a period of eight weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The WritPetition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Date: 22-12-2006Note: Furnish copy in a week.

AM

_________________Justice P.S.Narayana