Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gudisi Govindamma vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Mcunicipal ... on 28 October, 2024
APHC010473802024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 24603 OF 2024
Between:
Gudisi Govindamma ...PETITIONER
AND
The Greater Visakhapatnam Mcunicipal Corporation and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SATYAMNAIDU GOLIVI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
-
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in directing the
petitioner to stop the construction of my residential house removing the earlier
very old house through the building permit order no 1086/5611/B/Z8/EGE/
2023 Dt 23.12.2023, which is very much in subsistence without being
cancelled or revoked or in any way modified and in attempting to forcibly stop
her construction and threaten to demolish the house, if constructs without
issuing any notice or without giving an opportunity of being heard to her and
without passing any order as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the
provisions of the municipal corporation Act and against the constitutional
guarantees and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with
my construction and enjoyment of the property in an extent of 97.22 sq yds
covered by Pendurthi village Sy.No.116/1-58422, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam
including the completion of my construction activity in any manner
whatsoever and pass such other orders...."
2. Heard Mr. G. Satyam Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner;
learned Assistant Government Pleader, Municipal Administration and Urban
Development for the respondents.
3. Though the petitioner made several allegations in the writ affidavit
filed along with the writ petition, the truth or otherwise in those allegations
need not be adjudicated by this Court, in view of the submission made by the
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents that the
respondent authorities will follow due process of law.
4. It is settled law that a person in settled possession cannot be
dispossessed forcibly as held in Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa
Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr1, Ram Rattan v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 and
Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration3, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"...to forcibly dispossess citizens of their private property, without
following the due process of law, would be to violate a human
AIR 2004 SC 4609
1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299
1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408
right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300A of the
Constitution."
5. Recording submission of the learned Assistant Government for
respondents as there is no proposal to take possession of the subject land,
and in view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above, the respondents
are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner, except by
due process of law.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the
consent of both the counsel. However, this order will not preclude the
respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date: 28.10.2024.
KK
