Telangana High Court
WP/10318/2003 of RAMACHANDRA ASHRAMAM SEVA BHARATHI Vs NAGAR PANCHAYAT MEDAK REP. BY COMM. on 29 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.10318 OF 2003 Dated 29th December, 2009 Between: Sri Ramachandra Ashramam Seva Bharathi ….Petitioner And The Nagar Panchayat, Medak and two others ….Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.Viswanadham Counsel for the
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.10318 OF 2003Dated 29thDecember, 2009
Between:
Sri Ramachandra Ashramam Seva Bharathi ….Petitioner
And
The Nagar Panchayat, Medak and two others ….Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.Viswanadham Counsel for the respondents : None appeared The Court made the following
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:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set asideproceedings dated 24.05.2003 passed by the Commissioner ofrespondent No.1 Panchayat.
Heard Sri V.Vishwanatham, learned counsel for the petitioner.No one appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner claims to have purchased the property in questionunder a registered sale deed. On 08.02.2001, the petitioner applied forbuilding permission for construction of certain shops to augment itsincome. Respondent No.1 is stated to have received the saidapplication and as no communication was received by the petitionerthereafter, it has started construction of shops by invoking the deemedprovision contained in Section 214 of the Andhra PradeshMunicipalities Act, 1965
(for short “the Act”). Respondent No.1, however, issued the impugnedproceedings under Section 228 (1) and (2) of the Act, wherein thepetitioner is called upon to explain within three days as to why the saidprovisional order should not be confirmed. At this stage, the petitionerfiled the present writ petition questioning the said proceedings.
No counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.1. Respondents 2and 3 were impleaded, by order dated 13.07.2004 passed by thisCourt. It is their case that they are the owners of the property and thata title suit filed by them against the petitioner is still pending.
From the facts noted above, it is evident that while the petitionersought to proceed with the construction by invoking the deemed provision under the Act, respondent No.1 issued the impugned noticeby exercising its power under Section 228 (1) and (2) of the Act. It isclearly stated in the impugned proceedings that as no prior permissionhas been obtained by the petitioner, the construction is liable to beremoved. In my opinion, the petitioner approached this Courtprematurely because under Section 228 (3) of the Act, it is entitled tosubmit its explanation to the show cause notice and it is only in theevent of the petitioner not being able to explain to the satisfaction ofrespondent No.1 that it has commenced the construction inaccordance with law, that the structure will be removed. Therefore, thestatute has provided for an opportunity to the petitioner to firstapproach respondent No.1 with satisfactory explanation and preventfurther action from being taken. It is only if the petitioner fails tosucceed in that attempt, then the question of its invoking a remedywould arise.
In these circumstances, the writ petition is wholly misconceivedand hence, the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner toapproach the respondents with an explanation.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Dated 29[th] December, 2009
vrn