Telangana High Court
WP/22004/1995 of B.RAGHAVENDARA Vs G.M. TELECOM DEPT. on 28 September 1995
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 22004 of 1994 Between: S.T.Ruhani, S/o.Gafoo,r R/o.H.No.4-126/ A -5, Santhagate, A.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JANUARYTWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 22004 of 1994
Between:
S.T.Ruhani, S/o.Gafoo,rR/o.H.No.4-126/A-5, Santhagate, A.P. High School Road,Madanapalle, Chittoor District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. Madanapalle, Chittoor District.
2 The Madanapalle Municipality, Rep.by its Commissioner, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. Madanapalle, Chittoor District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue an order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring theaction of the respondents in threatening to demolish the house of the petitionerbearing Door.No.4-126/A-6,Santhagate, Z.P. High School Road, Madanapalle, withan adjacent bank etc., in survey No.276/B of Madanapalle Municipality as highlyillegal, wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional and is violative of Arts.14 and 21 of theConstitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess thepetitioner from the said property either by resorting to demolition activity or otherwiseunless and until the petitioner is evicted by due process of law or his representationsare disposed off.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.RAMESH
Counsel for the Respondents: GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR REVENUE
Page 1 of 3
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare theaction of the respondents in taking steps to demolish the house of thepetitioner bearing D.No.4-126/A-6 situated in Santhagate, Z.P. HighSchool Road, Madanapalle, as arbitrary and illegal.
In a nut-shell, it is the case of the petitioner that he has been inpossession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.276/B ofMadanapalle Municipality for more than 20 years and hasconstructed a house bearing D.No.4-126/A-6 therein. It is furtherstated that he made several representations to the respondents forassignment of the said land, to which he is entitled to, but the samewas not looked into. It is also stated that when the secondrespondent was taking steps to demolish the said house withoutfollowing the due process of law, he filed O.S.No.11 of 1992 on thefile of the Principal District Munsif, Madanapalle, and obtained interiminjunction.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is statedthat the petitioner has encroached into the land of the Weekly Marketsite in Sy.No.276/B/1-B of B.K.Palle Village and as the saidencroachment is an illegal one, steps were taken by following dueprocess of law, to remove the unauthorized construction, by booking an encroachment case against the petitioner in E.R.No.1/92 andnotices were also issued to the petitioner as contemplated underSections-192, 193 and 336 of the A.P. Municipalities Act. It is furtherstated that when steps were taken by the respondents to remove theunauthorized constructions in the said land, the petitioner has filedO.S.No.11 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif,Madanapalle, and obtained injunction orders.
Page 2 of 3
In view of the averments made in the counter-affidavit that as thepetitioner has encroached into the land in question, steps were takento remove the unauthorized construction by initiating proceedingsunder the A.P. Municipalities Act, it cannot be said that the stepstaken by the respondents are illegal and arbitrary. Admittedly, in thepresent case, the petitioner has already approached the Civil Courtby filing O.S. and the same is pending, and therefore, again hecannot file this writ petition for the identical relief. Even though it is hiscase that he is in longstanding possession and enjoyment of the saidland and as such acquired rights on it, it is for him to establish hisrights on the said land in the suit, which is already filed inasmuch asin the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is statedthat the said piece of land is part of the Weekly Market site and thepetitioner has encroached into the same.
In that view of the matter, no relief, as prayed for, can be granted inthis writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to bedismissed.
However, the Court below shall dispose of the suit filed by thepetitioner with reference to its own merits without being influenced byany of the observations made in this order.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Noorder as to costs.
17.01.2005
DR
To
1 The Mandal Revenue Officer,
Madanapalle, Chittoor DistRICT.
2 The Commissioner, Madanapalle Municipality, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.
3 2CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.(OUT)
4 2CD copies.
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…