HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.No.39014 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
1. 01.12.2022 CMR, J
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal
Administration takes notice for respondent 1.
Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation, takes notice for respondent 2 and requests time to obtain instructions.
List the matter after two (2) weeks.
________ CMR, J I.A.No.1 of 2022
The grievance of the writ petitioner is that respondent - Municipal Corporation authorities are making efforts to construct a sanitary office in the land in an extent of Ac.2.41 cents covered by Sy.No.59/1&2 Part, Mokasa Muthyalampadu Village, within the limits of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation illegally and highhandedly in the property, which belongs to the petitioner. It is stated that earlier the husband of the petitioner by name Penumatsa Vijaya Kalyan Chakravarthi filed suit in O.S.No.352 of 2013 on the file of the learned XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, against Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and also the Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department and a private party by name Lakkamraju Vijaya Bharathi for declaration of his title to the property in question and for injunction and that the said suit was decreed in favour of the husband of the petitioner declaring his title to the property and restraining the Municipal Corporation from interfering with his possession and enjoyment in respect of the said land by way of granting permanent injunction. It is stated that after the demise of her husband, the petitioner succeeded to the said property and she became owner of the said property. The petitioner has also produced copy of the judgment and decree, dated 14.10.2019 passed in O.S.No.352 of 2013 on the file of the learned XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, in favour of her husband.
Therefore, when the title of her husband to the property is declared by the competent civil Court and when the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation is restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the said land, the Municipal Corporation cannot construct any sanitary office in the said property which is a private property belonging to the petitioner.
Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be interim direction to the respondents not to proceed with the construction of the said sanitary office in the said disputed property, till the next date of hearing.
________ CMR, J
Note: Issue CC by 02.12.2022 B/o AKN
