THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.3648 of 2021
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1, learned Standing Counsel for GWMC for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
In this writ petition the petitioners challenge the action of the respondents in trying to demolish respective shops of the petitioners situated at MGM main road, Mattewada, Warangal, without following due process of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that without putting the petitioners on notice or acquiring the properties in question, the official respondents are trying to demolish the properties of the petitioners for the purpose of widening of the road from 50 ft to 100 ft. Learned counsel has further stated that except few, none of the petitioners were served copies of the notice, dated 04.01.2021, for which, they have already submitted their explanation along with relevant documents. But, till date, they have not received any reply from the authorities. Learned counsel has also relied on the judgments of this Court to buttress his case that without any acquisition proceedings or without putting the petitioners on notice, the official respondents cannot dispossess petitioners nor demolish the structures in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further stated that the petitioners may be given reasonable time to submit their explanation to the show cause notice.
2
WP No.3648 of 2021 AAR,J Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, has stated that the petitioners were issued notices on 04.01.2020. But, till date, only some of the petitioners have submitted their explanation. Subsequently, the Corporation has also issued notices on 12.02.2021. When the petitioners refused to accept the notices, the same were pasted on the shops of the petitioners on 15.02.2021. Learned Standing Counsel has further stated that as per the building sanction granted in the year 2000, the petitioners were obligated to surrender various extents of land towards the road widening, but now the petitioners are not adhering to the same. Learned Standing Counsel has further stated that the widening of the road from 50 ft. to 100 ft. has already been undertaken and necessary contractors have already been appointed. But, due to the encroachments made by the petitioners herein, the contractor was unable to take up the widening of the road and therefore, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that the Corporation has issued the notices to remove the encroachments and opposed the granting of any interim orders.
Heard both sides and perused the record.
Without going into the merits or demerits of the case, and having regard to the fact that the time granted by the official respondents in the impugned notices for removing/handing over the possession, is only three days, this Court is of the opinion that the time granted is not sufficient to enable the petitioners to seek their remedies under law. Therefore, the petitioners are granted seven days time either to give their consent or challenge the impugned notice before the appropriate Court. The respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps for a period of one week 3 WP No.3648 of 2021 AAR,J from today in respect of the petitioners who have not given their consent for handing over the possession of the property only. Insofar as the petitioners, who have given the consent, the possession will be taken as per the procedure contemplated under the law.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 16.02.2021.
Note : Issue CC today.
B/o smr/sur