Telangana High Court
WP/28254/2008 of Mrs. Suvarna Lakshmi (Major) Vs The Commissioner Municipal Corporation on 26 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.28254 of 2008 Between: Mrs. Suvarna Lakshmi (Major) W/o. K.N. Suresh, R/o. 6/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
WRIT PETITION NO.28254 of 2008
Between:
Mrs. Suvarna Lakshmi (Major) W/o. K.N. Suresh, R/o. 6/6 6/9, G. RamaRao Street, Kadapa.
AND
...PETITIONER
1 The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Kadapa.
2 The Executive Engineer Roads & Buildings, Kadapa.
3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue a direction or an order or a writ one in thenature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents todemolish the pillars of the Building or any part thereof on premisesbearing No.6/8 and 6/9 G. Rama Rao Street, Kadapa despite roadbeing widened to more than 55 ft. is illegal and abuse of executivepower.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.C.FRANCIS
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.I.NEWTON
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
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:
According to the petitioner, she is the owner of an extent of landadmeasuring five {5} cents (60 x 37 feet) situated at Ramarao Street,Kadapa and in the said land, she constructed a house bearing Nos.6/8and 6/9. However, for the purpose of road widening, a part of the landand house was acquired and land acquisition proceedings wereinitiated. Accordingly, the same were acquired and after following dueprocedure provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,compensation was also paid to the petitioner. In the remaining part, asthe petitioner is at liberty to proceed with the construction of anystructures and when she started construction, the respondents-authorities threatened her stating that the said building will bedemolished. Questioning the said action, she approached this Courtand filed the present Writ Petition.
On instructions, Mr. S.I.Newton, learned Standing Counsel for thefirst respondent, submitted that under the guise of construction of ahouse in the remaining part of the land, the petitioner is encroaching into the road, which was widened by acquiring the said land, whichnecessitated approaching the petitioner and directed her not to raiseany structures.
Heard both the sides.
In the light of the said submission, this Court directs the petitionerto approach respondents 2 and 3 and give representations stating thatthe said construction is strictly in the remaining piece of land and shehas not encroached into any road for which the land was acquired,within a period of three {3} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order and the respondents 2 and 3 shall cause a detailed enquiryand ascertain as to whether the petitioner is making construction onlyin the remaining part of the land or encroaching into the road, whichwas widened, within a period of three {3} weeks thereafter.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. It is needless tomention that the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today.
_________________________
(GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J)
26[th] December 2008
Note: Wire at party’s costB/O
RRB