The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that if the authorities allow the encroachments to remain without initiating action by exercising their power under the Regulations, the very purpose of framing the Regulations would be frustrated.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that an application was made by the Petitioner to the 4th Respondent for the allotment of the land with the purpose of setting up a manufacturing unit for Pulverising Non-Metallic Minerals and then, the land was also allotted. The possession of the land was allotted and the registered sale was executed by the 4th Respondent. As per clause 7 and 8 of the sale deed, the subject land allotted to the petitioner is free from all encumbrances or charges or obligations, etc. Furthermore, the 8th Respondent encroached into the said plot, and a compound wall was constructed. The Petitioner made several representations to the authorities to remove the said encroachment. The 8th Respondent issued notices to the Petitioner advising the Petitioner to proceed legally on the encroachment. The present writ petitioner is filed in order to remove the said encroachment.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the construction of the factory was not as per the layout and the request was made to remove the encroachment, however, no action was initiated due to which the Petitioner issued the legal notice to the 4th Respondent, then, the 4th respondent called upon the 8th respondent to remove the encroachments, which are highly objectionable. It was furthermore contended that the authorities are under an obligation to initiate actions against the said Respondents.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent contended that the Regulations are not applicable to the allotment made before 2012. It was furthermore contended that the possession of the said land was given to the Petitioner and after that, there is no responsibility or obligation upon the corporation to initiate any action.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble court observed that it makes no difference whether the encroachment is on land that the petitioner or any other allottee is entitled to. The concerned Manager should have acted to remove the encroachment as soon as it was discovered that the 8th respondent had encroached beyond its allotted area.
It was furthermore observed that no material was placed on record which shows that any request was made by the 8th Respondent seeking allotment of the land. It was the wilful encroachment by the 8th Respondent.
The court noted that the mere fact that the authorities framed the Regulations would be rendered useless if they stood by and let the encroachments continue without taking any concrete measures to counter them.
Based on these considerations, the court directed the respondents 3 and 4 to take action against the 8th respondent in terms of the Clause 23 of the Regulations 2012 by removing the encroachments of the land by 11 the 8th respondent.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the writ petition.
Case Title: M/s. Sri Balaji Minerals V. State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ninala Jayasurya
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.29718 of 2015
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr.Surepalli Madhava Rao
Advocate for the Respondent: Smt. A. Jayanthi Mr.S.Vivek Chandra Sekhar
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
