Telangana High Court
WP/28755/2009 of P.Suryanarayana Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation on 31 December 2009
MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.28755 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of property, bearing No.58-1-245, NAD Kotharoad, Visakhapatnam. His grievance is that the respondents are trying to demolish the house for the purpose of widening of the road, that
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:
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWrit Petition No.28755 of 2009
The petitioner claims to be the owner of property, bearing No.58-1-245, NAD Kotharoad, Visakhapatnam. His grievance is thatthe respondents are trying to demolish the house for the purpose ofwidening of the road, that too, on one side of it, without initiating anyproceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’),or the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the HMC Act’).
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned StandingCounsel for the 1[st] respondent and learned Government Pleader forLand Acquisition.
Wherever the property of a citizen is needed for laying, orwidening of the road, two options are available for the Corporation. The first is to have recourse to the procedure prescribed underSections 146 and147 of the HMC Act, and the other is to adopt theprocedure under the Act. Either way, the property can be taken, onlyafter payment of compensation. The petitioner states that notificationsare not issued under any of the provisions. There cannot be anyjustification for the 1[st] respondent in proceeding against the property, unless theprescribed procedure is followed.
Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that therespondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from any part of hisproperty, unless notifications, or notices, under the relevant provisionsof law, are issued and the proceedings are finalized.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt.31-12-2009.
Note: Communicate operative portion
of the order by wire at party’s costs.
(B/o)
GJ
_____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.