Telangana High Court
WP/27583/2005 of Matur Subramanyam S/io Subba Ramaiah Vs The Commissioenr, Kadapa Municipal on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.27583 OF 2005 Dated: 26-12-2005 Between Matur Subramanyam, S/o. Subba Ramaiah R/o. D.No.2/785, Sri Hari Rao Street, Old Bus Stand Road, Kadapa and another. …PETITIONERS AND The Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation Kadapa District and
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH
WRIT PETITION No.27583 OF 2005
Dated: 26-12-2005
Between
Matur Subramanyam, S/o. Subba Ramaiah
R/o. D.No.2/785, Sri Hari Rao Street,
Old Bus Stand Road, Kadapa and another.
…PETITIONERS
AND
The Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation Kadapa District and others.
…RESPONDENTS
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:
Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents intrying to demolish the houses/structures belonging to them bearing Door Nos.2/785 and2/786, Sri Hari Rao Street, Old Bus Stand Road, Kadapa and Door No.2/537 EswarsinghStreet, Nagarjupet, Kadapa as illegal and arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the owners of above saidpremises in Kadapa town and municipality. The Kadapa municipality has been recentlyupgraded as Municipal Corporation. In view of the traffic congestion and to have free flow oftraffic the Kadapa Municipal Corporation has decided to widen the roads, for which they have identified 26 roads in the entire Kadapa municipal corporation. Learned counsel for thepetitioners further submits that the petitioners are not at all against the road-wideningprogramme of the respondents and they have no objection for the said programme if theirlands are acquired and if proper compensation is paid.
The only grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents without issuing any notices,without paying any compensation for their structures or the lands and without following dueprocess of law, are threatening to demolish the existing structures of the petitioners for the purpose of road-widening.
The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the action of respondentswithout following the due procedure prescribed under law and without paying anycompensation either by way of private negotiations or by way of initiating proceedings underthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is utter violation of the principles of natural justice as well asSections 146 and 147 of the Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the Act’).
This Court disposed of number of writ petitions directing the respondents not to demolishthe houses of the private citizens without following due process of law.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to demolish the structures ortake away any portion of the properties of the petitioners and not to dispossess themwithout following due process of law under Sections 146 and 147 of the Act or privatenegotiations or initiating the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. No costs.
December 26, 2005
Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in three days.
(B/O)
______________
V. ESWARAIAH, J