Markapur Baptist Field ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 667 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                 WRIT PETITION No.19391 of 2019

ORDER:-

        This Writ Petition for a mandamus is filed to declare the

action of respondents in not removing the unauthorized

constructions made in the land covered by Sy.Nos.339/B,

340/B, 341/B, 342/B, 343/B, 344/B, 395/B, 398/D, 399/1,

399/2, 399/2B, 400, 401 and 494/B4 in an extent of Ac.39.99

cents in Markapur Town and Municipality of Prakasam District,

as illegal and consequently sought direction to the respondents

to remove the said unauthorized constructions made in the said

land.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration &

Urban Development appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing

for respondent No.3 and Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent - Markapur

Municipality.

3. The petitioner is a Markapur Baptist Field Association

represented by its president Mr.J. Devanandam. It is stated

that the petitioner Association possessed the lands covered by

Sy.Nos.339/B, 340/B, 341/B, 342/B, 343/B, 344/B, 395/B,

398/D, 399/1, 399/2, 399/2B, 400, 401 and 494/B4 in an

extent of Ac.39.99 cents in Markapur Town and Municipality of

Prakasam District, as per the agreement, dated 14.04.1943, for

running a school in the said land. It is stated that since then

the petitioner Association has been in possession and

enjoyment of the said lands. Now, the grievance of the writ

petitioner is that some unauthorized constructions are being

made in the said lands possessed by the petitioner without

obtaining building permit from the 4th respondent -

Municipality. So, it is stated that the petitioner has submitted a

representation to the 4th respondent to take steps for removal of

the said unauthorized constructions being made in the said

lands by the third parties without obtaining prior approval from

the 4th respondent and that no action has been initiated till now

on it.

4. Respondent No.4 filed counter stating that a civil litigation

is pending between the petitioner and the third parties in

respect of the said lands and that the petitioner did not add

necessary and proper parties in the Writ Petition and it is stated

that as per the election conducted in the month of January that

one Jocob was elected as President in the place of Mr.J

Devadanam, who is now representing the Association in the

Writ Petition and as such the said J. Devadanam cannot

continue the Writ Petition. It is further pleaded that the

agreement, dated 14.04.1943, is not in accordance with law and

a copy of the same is also not produced before the 4th

respondent and it is finally pleaded that the allegations

mentioned in the Writ Petition against the 4th respondent are

not true and thereby prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

5. As noticed supra, the petitioner is a Markapur Baptist

Field Association. The petitioner asserts that the petitioner is in

possession of the said lands in an extent of Ac. 39.99 cents

covered by Sy.Nos.339/B, 340/B, 341/B, 342/B, 343/B,

344/B, 395/B, 398/D, 399/1, 399/2, 399/2B, 400, 401 and

494/B4 in Markapur Town and Municipality of Prakasam

District and that by virtue of an agreement, dated 14.04.1943,

executed in favour of the petitioner Association that the

petitioner Association has been in possession and enjoyment of

the said lands and it is stated that the petitioner is running a

school in part of the said property. It is stated that some third

parties have been illegally constructing buildings in the said

lands without obtaining prior permission from the 4th

respondent - Municipality as required under law. Admittedly,

the petitioner has submitted a representation before the 4th

respondent. The 4th respondent has also issued an

endorsement, dated 16.03.2016, stating that already notices

were issued to the persons who are unauthorized construction

holders in ABM compound and action as per law will be taken

against those unauthorized constructions.

6. The said endorsement was issued long back in the year

2016. However, nothing is stated in the counter filed by the 4th

respondent whether any such action is taken in respect of the

said unauthorized constructions made in ABM compound as

per law. When the law requires a person to obtain prior

permission from the 4th respondent - Municipality to construct

a building in any land and when they have constructed houses

in question without obtaining any such prior sanction, the 4th

respondent is under legal obligation to take appropriate action

in respect of the unauthorized constructions that are made

contrary to the provisions of the law. As no such action is

initiated till now, there is any amount of lethargy and inaction

on the part of the personnel of the 4th respondent - Municipality

in taking appropriate action in respect of the said unauthorized

constructions.

7. Although it is stated that some suits are pending between

the petitioner and the third parties in respect of the said lands,

the said dispute relating to the title or legal possession of the

said property is to be decided by the competent civil Court

before which the said suits are pending. Now, the 4th

respondent is only concerned with ascertaining the fact whether

the buildings are constructed with prior approval or sanction of

the 4th respondent or not. If it is found that the buildings are

constructed without prior approval or sanction or permission of

the 4th respondent, then the 4th respondent has to take action

against the persons who made the said illegal constructions

without prior permission from the 4th respondent and if

necessary, to take steps for demolition of the said constructions

which are made illegally without prior permission from the 4th

respondent as per law. The said Suits will not come in the way

of discharging its legitimate duty as per law in taking action for

making illegal construction without prior permission of the

municipal authorities.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the

judgment of the Common High Court of Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh passed in W.P.No.5877 of 2003 passed in the similar

circumstances and situation, in support of his contention.

9. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case,

the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent

No.4 to immediately issue notices to the affected parties who

indulged in the said unauthorized constructions of the buildings

in the aforesaid lands and cause inquiry in this regard and if it

is found that the said buildings are constructed without prior

building permit from the 4th respondent illegally, to take

appropriate action by the 4th respondent in this regard

according to law. The said exercise of issuing notices and

conducting inquiry and passing appropriate orders on it shall be

completed by the Commissioner of 4th respondent -

Municipality, within eight weeks from the date of this order. No

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date: 08.02.2023 AKN

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

WRIT PETITION No. 19391 of 2019

Date: 08-02-2023

AKN