Telangana High Court
WP/27779/2005 of V. Seetaravamma W/o Nataraju Vs The Municipal Commissioner, on 28 December 2005
MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27779 of 2005 Dated:28.12.2005 Between: V. Seetaravamma W/o Nataraju R/o D. No. 28/115 & 116, Kothapeta Vinukonda, Guntur District, and another. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Municipal Commissioner, Vinukonda Municipality, Guntur District .....RESPONDENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.27779 of 2005
Dated:28.12.2005
Between: V. Seetaravamma W/o Nataraju R/o D. No. 28/115 & 116, Kothapeta Vinukonda, Guntur District, andanother.AND
..... PETITIONERS
The Municipal Commissioner, Vinukonda Municipality, Guntur District
.....RESPONDENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
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.27779 of 2005
The petitioners claim that they were granted house site pattas in the year 1989 bythe revenue authorities after obtaining no objection certificate from the GramPanchayat. They constructed houses in 1997 on the plots assigned to them, andhave been paying the necessary taxes to the Gram Panchayat and later toVinukonda Municipality. They allege that the respondent-Municipality demanded thepetitioner to vacate the premises without giving any notice and without conductingany enquiry. The petitioners allege that if the petitioners’ property is required for anypublic purpose, the respondent can do so only in accordance with law and cannothighhandedly evict them.
At the stage of admission itself, the learned Standing Counsel for VinukondaMunicipality placed before this Court the notice issued on 27.12.2005. Thesenotices were received by the petitioners. While requesting the petitioners to producethe necessary proof of their title to the land, it was alleged in the notices that thepetitioners encroached upon the municipal land, and the same is hampering the laying of cement road in the area. The petitioners were also informed that if they failto produce any proof of their title, necessary action would be taken under Section192 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’).
The copies of the notices were furnished to the learned Counsel for the petitioners.After obtaining necessary instructions from his clients, the learned Counsel for thepetitioners submits that immediately after receipt of notices, the petitionersseparately filed explanations before the respondent, and that even beforeconsidering their representations, the petitioners cannot be evicted from the land.The learned Counsel asserts that the Mandal Revenue Officer has assigned theland to the petitioners for house sites and they have been in possession of the landsince long.
The petitioners approached this Court alleging that the respondent directed thepetitioners to evict the premises/land without due process of law. Now in the Court, ithas come to light that the respondent has already issued notices and also informedthe petitioners that necessary action would be taken under Section 192 of the Act.Therefore, if any opinion is expressed at this stage, it would be prejudicial to theinterest of the petitioners as well as Vinukonda Municipality. Instead, the writ petitionis disposed of directing the respondent to consider the explanations submitted bythe petitioners and take appropriate decision in the matter for the purpose of Section192 and/or 194 of the Act. This exercise may be completed by 02.01.2006. Till thenthere shall be status quo. No costs.
____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
28.12.2005