Telangana High Court
WP/17755/2008 of Tummalapalli Venkata Raja Sitha Mahalakshmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, on 29 December 2009
MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17755 of 2008 Dated: 29-12-2009 Between: Tummalapalli Venkata Raja Sitha Mahalakshmi ..... PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Muncipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 17755 of 2008
Dated: 29-12-2009
Between:
Tummalapalli Venkata Raja Sitha Mahalakshmi
AND
.....
PETITIONER
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary,Muncipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and twoothers
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDYWRIT PETITION No. 17755 of 2008
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:
In this writ petition, the petitioner who is the owner of aresidential site in plot No. 6-A/1 situated in Survey No. 61 ofBhavanipuram, Vijayawada seeks a direction by way of mandamusto declare the action of the respondents in taking steps to construct adrainage canal through her plot as illegal and arbitrary.
It is the grievance of the petitioner that though she is the ownerand possessor of the said plot having purchased the same for aconsideration of Rs.6,50,160/- vide registered sale deed No.7290,dated 29-08-2003, the respondents are taking steps to construct adrainage canal through the plot without obtaining her consent andwithout initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Counter affidavit is filed by the Commissioner of the 2[nd]respondent – Municipal Corporation. While generally denying theallegations made by the petitioner, it is stated in the counter affidavitthat there are two layouts in Bhavanipuram area known asMohammadiya layout and AP Housing Board layout. It is furtherstated that the Corporation proposed to construct a drain with a viewto provide hygienic conditions in the interest of public and in theprocess, the site of the petitioner to the extent of 5 feet x 78.9 feetlength equivalent to 43.83 square yards is being affected and thatsuch a drain will be constructed only after obtaining the consent ofthe petitioner. It is also stated that when the petitioner was asked togive her consent and even when negotiations were taking place, sheapproached this Court by suppressing the above facts.
From the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is not indispute that the petitioner is the owner of the site, which is beingaffected for the purpose of constructing a drain in between Mohammadiya layout and AP Housing Board layout. As therespondents themselves have stated that the drain will beconstructed only after obtaining the consent of the petitioner, I deem itappropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondentsnot to construct the drain in question without obtaining the consent ofthe petitioner. It is also made clear that if the petitioner is not willingto part with her land in negotiations, it is open to the respondent –Corporation to take steps, as per law.
Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
29-12-2009ks
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J