WP/42791/2015 of Gasiganti Mohan S/o Late Gasiganti Nagaiah Vs The State of Telangana on 31 December 2015

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION No.42791 of 2015

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief/s:- “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus bydeclaring the action of the respondent No.2 in interfering withthe peaceful possession and enjoyment over the propertyadmeasuring Ac.1.04 gts., in Sy.No.92/2 situated at KisanNagar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District as illegal, arbitrary,unjust, high handed, without jurisdiction and contrary to theprovisions of the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation andResettlement Act, 2013 (also Land Acquisition Act, 2013) andviolative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of Indiaand consequently direct the respondent NO.2 Corporation tonot to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment ofthe above mentioned property of the petitioner and pass suchother order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit andproper in the circumstance of the case.”

(Reproduced Verbatim)

Sri V. Satyam Reddy takes notice for the 2[nd] respondent-Karimnagar Municipal Corporation. I have heard the submissions ofthe learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned standingcounsel for the 2[nd] respondent. I have perused the material record.

The case, in brief, of the writ petitioner is that a pathway of 9feet width on the Southern side of his property is his exclusive privateproperty and that the purchasers of the property on the Northern side ofthe said pathway have been permitted to use the said path way fortheir ingress and egress; and that the said pathway/property is not apublic pathway and it is his exclusive property subject to the limitedright of the owners of the property on its North to use it for their ingressand egress and that the respondents are high handedly initiating stepsfor expanding that 9 feet pathway, which is the private property of thepetitioner, into a 30 feet road and that the said proposed action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary and that, therefore, the writpetitioner is constrained to file the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner while makingsubmissions in line with the contents of the affidavit filed in support ofthe writ petition had asserted, in particular, the submissions, which arestated supra.

The learned standing counsel for the 2[nd] respondent wouldsubmit that when the writ petitioner had made an attempt to encroachupon a road, an inspection was made, and that at present there is noproposal to widen any road and, therefore, the writ petition is liable tobe dismissed.

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, in reply, wouldsubmit that the fence that was erected at the fringe of the property ofthe writ petitioner was removed high handedly and that in case the writpetitioner intends to construct a compound wall for his property, thewrit petitioner would take necessary permission and then wouldproceed to make the construction of the compound wall. He, therefore,requests to dispose of the writ petition after recording the submissionof the learned counsel for the parties.

The learned standing counsel for the 2[nd] respondent wouldsubmit that the 2[nd] respondent has no objection for the petitionerseeking the directions as now stated by the learned counsel for the writpetitioner.

Recording the submissions of the learned counsel for theparties, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2[nd] respondent toproceed with the widening of the road as and when necessary,however, by following the procedure in strict accordance with the lawand after examining the right and claim of the petitioner ascontemplated under law. It is made clear that the writ petitioner is at liberty to obtain necessary permission/approval for the construction ofthe proposed compound wall for his property, if he so desires and if soadvised. There shall be no order as to costs.

Conclusion

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in thewrit petition shall stand dismissed.

______________________M.Seetharama Murti, J

31[st] December, 2015cbs

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

cbs

WRIT PETITION No.42791 of 2015

31[st] December, 2015