Telangana High Court
WP/27824/2005 of Society of Catechist Sisters of St.Anns, Tarnaka, Vs The Collector, Nizamabad, on 30 December 2005
MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27824 of 2005 Dated:30.12.2005 Between: Society of Catechist Sisters of St.Anns, Tarnaka, Rep by Head Mistress, Sr.B.Fathima, R/o.Nirmala Hrudaya School, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District, and others.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.27824 of 2005
Dated:30.12.2005
Between:
Society of Catechist Sisters of St.Anns, Tarnaka, Rep by Head Mistress, Sr.B.Fathima, R/o.Nirmala Hrudaya School, Nizamabad.
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District, and others.
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
ORDER:
WRIT PETITION No.27824 of 2005
The Society of Catechist Sisters of St.Anns, Tarnaka, is aggrieved by the action ofrespondent Nos.1 to 4 in not stopping the laying of road in its land as illegal. Thepetitioner purchased land admeasuring Acs.3.19 guntas in Survey Nos.463/1, 2, 3,464/1, 2, 465, 501, 502 and 505 situated at Perkit Village, Armoor Mandal,Nizamabad District. The Society got the land mutated in its name and started constructing a School. The fifth respondent herein, who happens to be adjacentneighbour, started construction of a house and allegedly in collusion with the GramPanchayat came to the premises and removed the fence threatening to leave 33 feetwide road. The petitioner, therefore, filed a suit, being O.S.No.156 of 2005 on the fileof the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, and obtained interim injunctionagainst the fifth respondent and submitted a representation to the District PanchayatOfficer, who by memo dated 07.12.2005 directed the fourth respondent to stop layingof the road and further directed to appear before him on 08.12.2005. The petitioneralleges that in spite of the said directions, the fourth respondent is going ahead withthe laying of the road on 33 feet wide space of the petitioner. Therefore, it filed thepresent writ petition.
Page 1 of 2
The learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent after obtaining instructionsfrom his clients submits that as directed by the District Panchayat Officer, the fourthrespondent stopped the laying of the road. The same is recorded. As the petitioner iswilling to part with land up to an extent of 16.6 feet, there cannot be any objection forlaying down the road, but if any excess land is required, the respondents hereincannot interfere with the possession of the petitioner except in accordance with law.
The Writ Petition, with the above observation, is disposed of. No costs.
____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
30.12.2005
Note: Issue C.C. in one week.
B/o.vs
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…