Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Randhi Ramalakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, C.Praveen Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
I.A.Nos.1,2 & 3 of 2019
in/and
W.A.No.471 of 2019
(Through video conferencing)
Smt. RandhiRamalakshmi,W/o.Suryanarayana
Hindu, aged 51 years, household duties,
R/o.D.No.23-63-11, Dayal Nagar, B.C.Road,
Pedagantyada, Pedagantyadamandal, Gajuwaka
Visakhapatnam-26, and others ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration
Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur District, and others ... Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Jada Sravan Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.1 : G.P. for MA & UD
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy
Counsel for respondents 3 & 4 : G.P. for Revenue
Counsel for respondents 5 & 6 : Mr. V. V. Satish
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt: 03.02.2021
(ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ)
Heard Mr. Jada Sravan Kumar,learned counsel for the
appellants.
Also heard learned Govt. Pleader for Municipal
Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1,
Mr. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, standing counsel for respondents
No.2, learned Govt. Pleader for Revenue for respondents 3 and 4
and Mr. V.V. Satish, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6.
I.A.No.1 of 2019 is an application to condone the delay of
210 days in preferring the writ appeal, along with applications
seeking to dispense with filing of the certified copy of the order
under appeal and leave to appeal, i.e., I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2019,
respectively.
The appeal was filed on 10.12.2019. By the order impugned,
a learned single Judge of this Court, while observing that the
respondent-Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and
others are under an obligation to remove encroachments on the
road margins and maintain them free from encroachments,
disposed of the writ petition directing the Commissioner, Greater
Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, to consider and take
appropriate action as per law on the representation submitted by
the writ petitioner on 20.03.2019, within six weeks.
The grievance expressed by the appellants is that, though in
the writ petition, reference was made to six persons who were
alleged to have encroached, except one, the appellants, were not
made party respondents and, on the strength of the order passed
by this Court, they have been evicted.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation
submits that the appellants had filed an independent writ petition,
numbered as W.P.No.13564 of 2019 on 11.09.2019. However, this
fact is disputed by Mr. Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants, contending that the said writ petition pertains to a
different plot of land.
Considering the aforesaid, we condone the delay, dispense
with the filing of the certified copy of the order and grant leave to
appeal.
We have also heard the learned counsel for the parties on
the appeal.
Though the appellants may not have been heard or may not
have been made parties in the writ petition, the order of the
learned single Judge, which is noted supra, was to dispose of the
representation and to take action in accordance with law. By the
aforesaid order, no prejudice is caused, as any action that had to
be taken by the respondents-authorities would have to be in
accordance with law. If the authorities have taken any action
without following due process of law, that will be subject matter
of a different challenge altogether. In that view of the matter,
considering that no prejudice is otherwise caused to the
appellants, we do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the
said order.
Accordingly, I.As., as well as the Writ Appeal are disposed
of. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
MRR
