Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while disposing of a writ petition challenging the inaction of municipal authorities in removing encroachments obstructing road widening, held that once a private street is approved under municipal law, the Commissioner is empowered under Section 392(2) of the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act to take corrective steps including demolition, regardless of individual opposition.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, a resident of A.T. Agraharam, Bandla Bazar, Guntur, filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the municipal authorities to remove alleged illegal encroachments by Respondents No. 3 to 8 in a narrow residential lane (4th Lane, Venkatakrishna Colony), and to widen the existing six-foot-wide road. A joint meeting of residents was held on 28.12.2022, resulting in a consensus to provide setbacks for the proposed road expansion. The petitioner complied by giving a 6-foot setback. However, Respondents No. 3 to 8 refused to do the same, thereby obstructing the road development. Despite representations to the Ward Corporator and the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), no conclusive action was taken, leading to the filing of W.P. No. 2946 of 2024.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that all residents had initially agreed to remove encroachments for road widening. However, Respondents No. 3 to 8 went back on the agreement and encroached on public space, thereby denying the petitioner and others safe access to their properties. It was contended that photographs on record clearly show the constricted lane, barely wide enough for a small vehicle. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner is empowered to remove such obstructions under the relevant municipal law.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in its counter stated that although several residents supported the initiative and consented to road widening and drain construction, some—including Respondents No. 3 to 8—refused to cooperate. A survey and encroachment sketch had already been prepared identifying the structures causing obstruction. It was submitted that 10 out of 14 residents agreed in writing to the proposal. Respondents No. 3 to 8 contended that the street was a private path, not part of the municipal road network, and in the absence of a civil court decree, they could not be declared encroachers. They claimed to be within their sale deed boundaries and denied any illegality.
Observations of the Court:
The Court, after hearing the learned counsels for both sides and perusing the material placed on record, examined the statutory framework governing private streets under municipal law. It took particular note of Section 392 of the relevant Municipal Act, which restricts the formation or alteration of private streets without the prior written permission of the Commissioner. The provision enables the Commissioner to exercise regulatory authority over street development, including issuing show cause notices, ordering alterations or demolitions, and restoring encroached land, regardless of whether the street is technically classified as private.
In the present case, the Court observed that the locality in question is a narrow lane where several residents had previously agreed to provide setbacks for the widening of the road. The petitioner had already complied with this arrangement. A survey had been conducted, and encroachments were identified through an officially prepared sketch. The Corporation had confirmed that a majority of the residents—10 out of 14—had given their written consent for the proposed widening of the street and construction of drainage systems. Despite this, certain residents, i.e., Respondents No. 3 to 8, were continuing to resist the municipal efforts.
The Court found that the obstructive stance adopted by these respondents was creating unnecessary hardship for other residents and was stalling a legitimate civic improvement project. The Court was not persuaded by the claim that the street is a private one beyond the purview of municipal regulation. It held that even if the street was originally private, once it becomes functionally integrated with city infrastructure, the Municipal Commissioner retains authority to ensure orderly development.
The Court underscored the importance of urban planning, particularly in densely populated areas, and found that the refusal of a few property owners to cooperate could not override the rights of other citizens or the public interest. The provision under Section 392 provides adequate procedural safeguards, including opportunities to be heard. However, once encroachments are established through proper survey and the objections are found meritless, the Commissioner is duty-bound to act for the greater good.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Commissioner was well within his statutory powers to proceed against the non-cooperative residents. It held that the claim of absolute ownership or boundaries as per sale deeds could not be used to frustrate municipal regulation, especially when such claims had not been adjudicated by any civil court.
The decision of the Court:
The Commissioner was directed to proceed in a time-bound manner by first calling for a report, then issuing notices, and finally passing reasoned orders for necessary action.
Case Title: Seelam Atma Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nyapathy Vijay
Case No: W.P. No. 2946 of 2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Bhaskar Prem Koushik
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. K.H.V. Siva Kumar, Mr. A.S.C. Bose
