WP/26691/2006 of K.Prasanth Kumar Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 22 December 2006

::O R D E R::

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Rajagopalan Tayan for Sri B.Vijaysen REddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Government Pleader forMunicipal Administration.

Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri P.Radhakrishna, Standing Counsel for Tandur Municipality.

22[nd] December, 2006

Per G.S.Singhvi, C.J.

In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for issue of amandamus to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take steps for removal ofunauthorized structure erected by respondent No.4 on land measuring2,400 square yards in Survey No.135 of Tandur Town, Ranga ReddyDistrict.

Petitioner No.1, K.Prasanth Kumar, claims to be doing somebusiness and petitioner No.2, Ahmed Khan is a Councillor of TandurMunicipality. They have jointly invoked the jurisdiction of this Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a direction tothe official respondents to demolish the alleged unauthorized structureraised by respondent No.4, The Tandur Congress Committee. In theaffidavit filed by petitioner No.2 – Ahmed Khan, it has been averredthat respondent No.4 is in possession of government land measuring2400 square yards comprised in Survey No.135 of Tandur Town; thatwithout obtaining permission from Tandur Municipality, the saidrespondent has started construction, and that despite complaint dated7-11-2006 lodged by the Councillors belonging to Telugu DesamParty, Director, Town Planning and other official respondents have nottaken steps to demolish the illegal construction. Sri Ahmed Khan hasfurther averred that Smt.Shanta Bai filed O.S.No.96 of 2006 in theCourt of Junior Civil Judge, Tandur with the complaint that respondentNo.4 has encroached her land. He has then averred that the issueregarding illegal construction made by respondent No.4 was raised inthe meeting of the Municipal Councillors held on 31-10-2006, but theofficial respondents have not taken action to stop the illegalconstruction and demolish the construction already made. Sri AhmedKhan has relied on some paper reports regarding the alleged illegalconstruction and made the following averments in paragraph 4 of hisaffidavit:

“We reliably learnt that the land under the possession ofthe 4[th] respondent earlier belongs to the government. It is notknown under what capacity the 4[th] respondent is inpossession of the property. It is claimed by respondent No.4that the government has assigned the schedule land to themfor the purpose of construction of a party office. To ourknowledge and information, this piece of land still vets ingovernment and so far there is no order of assigning theselands in favour of the 4[th] respondent. Surprisingly, acommercial structure is being raised by the 4[th]

respondent throwing all norms to winds. Not only thatconstruction is taken up without any prior sanction, thestructures are made by the 4[th] respondent without leavingmandatory open spaces and set backs. Since we reliablylearnt that the 4[th] respondent does not have any titleto the property, we have made 1[st] respondent as a party to thiswrit petition for taking appropriate action for resumption of landfrom the possession of the 4[th] respondent. The constructionwas taken up by the 4[th] respondent in the month ofAugust, 2006 itself. The 3[rd] respondent issued a letter dt.24-11-2006 informing the 2[nd] petitioner that the 4[th] respondenthas paid planning fees of Rs.20,430/- vide challan No.7079,dt.5-10-2006 for building permission and the same is underprocess. It is thus clear that the construction is taken up bythe 4[th] respondent without any sanction and, therefore,unauthorized structures are liable to be demolished. Theproperty under possession of the 4[th] respondent is a primeproperty and can be used for any public purpose. But allowinga political party to possess the property and make illegalconstructions despite the complaints being made by thepetitioners is nothing but gross abuse of official position. Therespondents No.1 to 3 coming under the influence ofChairman of Tandur Municipal Council who also belongs tothe Congress Party and local Congress MLA are deliberatelynot taking any action against the 4[th] respondent and are mutespectators to this illegal construction of the 4[th] respondent. The illegal construction of the 4[th] respondent is widelyreported in daily news papers, but despite the same, theofficial respondents failed to act. If directions are not issued tothe respondents No.1 to 3to take action against the 4[th]respondent for illegal construction in the property admeasuring2400 sq.yds in Sy.No.135 of Tandur Town, Ranga Reddy andfor resumption of land, public in general of Tandur Town wouldbe put to irreparable loss and injury. It is also just andnecessary to grant interim directions to the respondents No.1

to 3 to take action against the 4[th] respondent for removal ofunauthorized construction pending disposal of the writpetition.”

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused therecord. In our opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissedbecause the petitioners have not produced any tangible materialbefore the Court to show that the construction depicted in thephotographs annexed with the writ petition is being raised byrespondent No.4 and that too without getting the building plansanctioned from the competent authority. The averments contained inthe affidavit of Sri Ahmed Khan and representation dated 7-10-2006give an impression that the petitioners are espousing the cause ofSmt.Shanta Bai, whose land is said to have been encroached byrespondent No.4 and who has filed suit in the Court of Junior CivilJudge, Tandur. This is evinced from the contents of representationdated 7-10-2006 sent by petitioner No.2 and six others to respondentNo.2, the relevant potion of which is extracted below:

Conclusion

“That, the Tandur Congress Committee is trying toencroach the land belongs to Smt.Shanti Devi. The TandurCongress Committee instead of constructing on the landbelongs to them, illegally encroaching into the land inSy.No.137 of Tandur which exclusively belongs to Smt.ShantaDevi. The said Smt.Shanta Devi filed a suit before the JuniorCivil Judge, Tandur in O.S.No.96 of 2006 for interim injunctionand same is pending. The said case is filed against TandurCongress Committee as they are trying to encroach into theland of Smt.Shanta Devi.”

In our considered view, the petitioners cannot be heard to makea complaint against the alleged encroachment of land belonging toSmt.Shanta Bai by respondent No.4, more so because the suit filed byher is now pending in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Tandur.

With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissedleaving the petitioners free to apply for their impleadment as parties inthe suit filed by Smt.Shanta Bai or file an independent suit for passinga decree of demolition of the alleged illegal construction being raisedby respondent No.4.

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.34290

and 34291 of 2006 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are alsodismissed.

22[nd] December, 2006

G.S.SINGHVI, C.J.

C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.

ARS