Telangana High Court
WP/26866/2006 of P.Satyanarayana Raju, Vs The Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal on 27 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.26866 of 2006 Date: 27-12-2006 Between: 1. P.Satyanarayana Raju, s/o Appal Raju, aged 53 years, r/o 48-1-32/3, Srinagar Colony, Visakhapatnam and another. … Petitioners. And The Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Venneti
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.26866 of 2006
Date: 27-12-2006
Between:
1. P.Satyanarayana Raju,
s/o Appal Raju, aged 53 years,
r/o 48-1-32/3, Srinagar Colony,
Visakhapatnam and another.
… Petitioners.
And
The Commissioner,Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation,Venneti Bhavan, Visakhapatnam.
… Respondent.
* * *
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:
Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel takes notice onbehalf of the respondent. Heard Sri Raja Gopalavan Tayi, learnedcounsel representing the writ petitioners.
2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring actionof the respondent, his agents, officials or any person/s claimingthrough or under him in interfering with the construction activity of thepetitioners over the schedule property land admeasuring 1376 squareyards in survey No.13/1A1, situated at Gopalpatnam village,Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary and pass such other suitableorders.
3. It is stated that the writ petitioners filed W.P.No.15943 of 2006and this Court by order dated 01[st] August 2006 disposed of the same as hereunder.
“ The main grievance of the petitioners is that unlessand until the respondent follows due process of law, suchunauthorized interference is unwarranted. It is needless tosay that when the respondent intends to initiate any action, therespondent is expected to follow the due process of law.
In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of witha direction not to resort to any demolition activity unless anduntil the respondent follows due process of law. No order asto costs.”
4. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners thatthough there are no deviations and the petitioners are proceeding withconstruction in accordance with the approved plan, without issuing anynotice and without following any procedure, the subordinates of therespondent are interfering with the construction activity.
5. It is needless to say that already specific direction had beenissued in the prior writ petition in W.P.No.15943 of 2006. It is madeclear that the respondent or subordinates of the respondent cannotinterfere with the construction activity of the petitioners unless dueprocess of law is followed. It is needless to say that the respondent isat liberty to initiate appropriate action if there are deviations from theapproved plan.
6. Hence, in view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with adirection to the respondent not to resort to any demolition activity or tointerfere with the construction activity of the petitioners unless and untildue process of law is followed in this regard.
7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
__________________
Date: December 27, 2006.
Note:Issue operative portion of theOrder by wire at party’s costs. //B.O.//BSB