Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S Bhagyaraju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 November, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.37400 of 2022
JUDGMENT:-
1. Heard Sri N.Prem Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration
for the respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for
Revenue for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri P.Anand Surya,
learned counsel, representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava,
learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.5.
2. With the consent of the parties counsels, the writ petition
is being disposed of finally at this stage.
3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed for the following relief:-
"Under the above circumstances, it is therefore
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue
appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of
the respondents in not issuing any prior notice or not
initiating any proceedings as contemplated under the
Provisions of Land Acquisition Act and earmarking the
house of the petitioner in Sy.No.178-3 an extent of Ac.0.93
cents out of Ac.0.93 cents of bearing D.No.18-1-712,
Venugopal Nagar, Anantapur Town and District for
demolishing to widen the 50 feet road in to 60 feet road is
illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural
justice and contrary to the provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and in violation
of Art 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and
consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the
house of the petitioner in Sy. No. 178-3 an extent of Ac. 0.00.
90 cents out of Ac. 0.93 cents of bearing D.No.18-17-12 with
assessment No. 1001024397 and D.No.18-17-121 with
assessment No. 1001000047 Venugopal Nagar, Anantapur
Town and District for demolishing to widen the 50 feet road in
to 60 feet road is illegal arbitrary and in violation of principles
of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and in violation of
Art 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently
direct the respondents not to demolish the house of the
petitioner in Sy. No. 1783 an extent of Ac. 0. 00. 90 cents out of
Ac.0.93 cents of bearing D.No.18-1-712 with assessment No.
1001024397 and D.No.18-17-121 with assessment No.
1001000047 Venugopal Nagar, Anantapur Town and District in
the interest of justice and to pass necessary orders"
4. Sri N.Premraj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that without following due process of law i.e. giving any notice
to the petitioner as also without acquiring the petitioner's
property, the respondent No.5 is trying to utilize and take the
petitioner's property for widening of the road which action
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
5. Sri P.Anand Surya, learned counsel representing Sri
Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, respondent No.5 based on the
written instructions from the Assistant city planner, Municipal
Corporation, Ananthapuramu submits that in the master plan
there exists 60 feet vide road, but on the spot after taking the
survey it was found that the road is 50 feet vide and to the
extent of the remaining 10 feet master plan road there are
encroachment. He submits that it is not the case of widening of
the road from 50 to 60 feet but to maintain the 60 feet master
plan road. He further submits that in implementation of master
plan road of 60 feet, the necessary action will be taken only in
accordance with law as per the rules for removal of the
encroachments.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission advanced and the
stand taken by the Corporation that it shall follow due process
of law, in removal of the encroachment, the writ petition is
disposed of finally, with the consent of the parties consents,
providing that the respondent No.5, shall proceed in counsels,
with law as per the rules in force for implementing the 60 feet
master plan road on spot.
7. Further, if there is no encroachment but for the public
purpose, the property of the petitioner is required, in that case
also, the authorities shall proceed only in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is disposed of finally with the above
observations and directions.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,
shall also stand closed.
__________________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
Date:18.11.2022
Gk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.37400 of 2022
Date: 18.11.2022
Gk
