Telangana High Court
WP/30630/2010 of M/s.Swarnadhara Exports Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.30630 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was allotted a site of 7200 square meters in the industrial area at Ongole by the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, the 2nd respondent herein. The land was transferred on outright sale
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
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:
Writ Petition No.30630 of 2010
The petitioner was allotted a site of 7200 square meters in theindustrial area at Ongole by the A.P. Industrial InfrastructureCorporation Limited, the 2[nd] respondent herein. The land wastransferred on outright sale basis after collecting the cost of the land. The petitioner got the land allotted with a view to establish a GraniteCutting and Polishing Unit. The 3[rd] respondent issued a notice dated04.11.2010 to the petitioner, alleging that it has constructed four shopson the road side, encroaching a part of the road for commercialpurposes. It was mentioned that no permission was accorded to thepetitioner and that the unauthorized construction cannot be permittedto remain. Accordingly, it required the petitioner to remove theunauthorized construction.
The petitioner submits that the shops were constructed only todisplay the sale of the products manufactured by it and that theallegation as to giving the same on rent is not correct. It is also statedthat no portion of the land of the Corporation was encroached.
Heard Sri Nirmal Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was allotted the sitereferred to above for the purpose of establishing a cutting andpolishing unit. The petitioner asserts that a revised plan showing theproposed rooms, was submitted for approval to the respondents. Assuming that there was no permission to the petitioner to constructsuch rooms, the proposed action cannot be sustained. The reason is that the manufacturer should have proper facility to sale the product. The local authority as such did not take any exception. At the sametime, the petitioner cannot lease the premises to others.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that therespondents shall not proceed against the shops constructed by thepetitioner as long as they are utilized by the petitioner alone. It is,however, made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to leasethe same to third parties.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall alsostand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dated:28.12.2012
____________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
GJ
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Writ Petition No.30630 of 2010
Date:28.12.2012
GJ