Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Seege Naveen Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 January, 2023
Bench: Ravi Nath Tilhari
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.42661 of 2022
JUDGMENT:-
1. Heard Sri K.L.N.Swamy, learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Municipal
Administration for the respondent No.1, learned Government
Pleader for Revenue for the respondent No.2 and Sri P.Anand
Surya, learned counsel, representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy
Kalava, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos.
3 and 4.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed for the following relief:-
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to issue order or orders, direction or directions,
Writ or Writs particularly one in the nature Writ of
Mandamus or any appropriate writ and to declare the
action of the respondents in proposing to acquire 23 feet
width road in Sy.Nos.74/4, 74/5, western side of the
existing road and only acquiring 3 feet width road in
Sy.No.58, 59, 61 of the eastern side of the existing road is
illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural
justice and against the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensetion and Transparcy in Land Acqusition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and violative of
Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India
consequently direct the respondents to lay the road
equally on both side of the existing road and to pass such
other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 previously filed W.P.No.24647
of 2021, S.Nannebi and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
others and the petitioner No.4 filed W.P.No.22073 of 2021,
which are pending in this Court. On a specific query made to
the learned counsel for the petitioners, he submits that those
petitions arise due to the cause of action with respect to
ROC.No.2441/2020/GI, dated 25.08.2020, with respect to the
same subject property of the said petitioners, respectively.
4. In those writ petitions, this Court passed the interim
order directing the respondents therein, who are the present
respondents not to take any further action pursuant to the
impugned notices in those cases.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now the
Corporation has issued another notice dated 25.08.2022,
annexed as Ex.P1, giving reference to the earlier notice dated
25.08.2020 and also the writ petition filed by the petitioners.
Though all the notices have not been annexed, but the learned
counsel submits that the notices have been given to all the
petitioners separately in the same way.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are not challenging the notice dated 25.08.2022, but
their prayer is with respect to alignment in expansion of road.
He submits that such expansion should be on both sides of the
roads.
7. From the pleadings of the writ petition as also the
submissions advanced, this Court finds that the grievance of
the petitioners arise out of the same cause of action i.e., the
same road widening subject matter of the notice dated
25.08.2020 and is not independent of that. Challenging the
notice dated 25.08.2020, W.P.No.24647 of 2021 was filed in
which this Court directed the respondents not to demolish the
subject matter of the petitioners without following due process
of law. Pursuant to the interim order dated 11.11.2021, the
petitioners are issued Ex.P1 notice dated 25.08.2022 granting
them opportunity to furnish the documents etc within specified
time.
8. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, which are the copies of the
representations dated 13.07.2022 to the Commissioner, Tirupati
Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, and the District Collector,
Tirupati District, Tirupati, respectively shown that the grievance
as raised therein is with respect to laying the road, expanding it
only towards the site of those villagers submitting the
representations, and trying to demolish their houses for which
they had already approached this Court earlier in which the
stay order was granted.
9. Para No.5 of the affidavit further shows that the grievance
is with respect to the same road widening to which notice dated
25.08.2020 relates. It is submitted in Para No.5, inter alia, that
if the road is expanded equally to either side of the existing road
the petitioners' property will not be effected anymore.
10. In Para No.6 of the affidavit with respect to the same road
widening, it is submitted that the proposed road to an extent of
23 feet wide in the petitioners' site is without acquiring such
land.
11. From Ex.P7, copy of the interim order in W.P.No.22073 of
2021 as also Ex.P8, copy of the interim order in W.P.No.24647
of 2021, it is evident that the grievance raised was pursuant to
the notice dated 25.08.2020 and the individual subsequent
notices, on the ground of affecting the petitioners same
properties as in the present writ petition, without initiating
Land Acquisition proceedings.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
cause of action is different as the petitioners are not challenging
the notice dated 25.08.2022, but are challenging the action of
the respondents in not expanding the road equally on both
sides.
13. In view of what has been considered above, by this Court
on perusal of the material on record, the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the cause of action for
the present writ petition is different, cannot be accepted. The
grievance in the earlier writ petition was for saving the
petitioners' same property from being affected in road widening
and in the present writ petition also the grievance is the same
with respect to the same road widening affecting the petitioners'
same property.
14. The petitioners cannot maintain writ petitions for different
reliefs, out of the same cause of action, by differently framing
the relief or/and mentioning the cause of action in a different
way.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the same
notice as Ex.P1 dated 25.08.2022 has been issued to the
petitioner No.3, Koyambathuru Mani, as well, but on a specific
query which writ petition, the petitioner No.3 herein filed, he
says that he has no specific instructions. He submits that from
perusal of Ex.P7 and Ex.P8, the present petitioner No.3 is not
the petitioner in those earlier writ petitions.
16. In the result the writ petition,
a) for the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 being misconceived is
dismissed, however leaving it open to them, if so advised, and if
it is permissible in law, to seek appropriate relief in the pending
writ petitions.
b) With respect to the petitioner No.3, if the notice given to him
is not the same as the notice given to the other petitioners
annexed as Ex.P1, and if the petitioner No.3 has not previously
filed writ petition before this Court with respect to the same
subject matter, it is open to the petitioner No.3 to seek
appropriate remedy if so advised.
17. The writ petition is dismissed with the observations as
made above.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any
pending, shall also stand closed.
__________________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
Date: 03.01.2023
SCS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.42661 of 2022
Date: 03.01.2023
Scs
