Jakkula Sridhar, vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 448 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

                WRIT PETITION No.3648 of 2021
ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban

Development for respondent No.1, learned Standing Counsel for

GWMC for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and learned Standing Counsel

for respondent No.4. With their consent, the Writ Petition is

disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

In this writ petition the petitioners challenge the action of

the respondents in trying to demolish respective shops of the

petitioners situated at MGM main road, Mattewada, Warangal,

without following due process of law.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that without

putting the petitioners on notice or acquiring the properties in

question, the official respondents are trying to demolish the

properties of the petitioners for the purpose of widening of the road

from 50 ft to 100 ft. Learned counsel has further stated that

except few, none of the petitioners were served copies of the notice,

dated 04.01.2021, for which, they have already submitted their

explanation along with relevant documents. But, till date, they

have not received any reply from the authorities. Learned counsel

has also relied on the judgments of this Court to buttress his case

that without any acquisition proceedings or without putting the

petitioners on notice, the official respondents cannot dispossess

petitioners nor demolish the structures in question. Learned

counsel for the petitioners has further stated that the petitioners

may be given reasonable time to submit their explanation to the

show cause notice.

WP No.3648 of 2021 AAR,J

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel, on instructions,

has stated that the petitioners were issued notices on 04.01.2020.

But, till date, only some of the petitioners have submitted their

explanation. Subsequently, the Corporation has also issued

notices on 12.02.2021. When the petitioners refused to accept the

notices, the same were pasted on the shops of the petitioners on

15.02.2021. Learned Standing Counsel has further stated that as

per the building sanction granted in the year 2000, the petitioners

were obligated to surrender various extents of land towards the

road widening, but now the petitioners are not adhering to the

same. Learned Standing Counsel has further stated that the

widening of the road from 50 ft. to 100 ft. has already been

undertaken and necessary contractors have already been

appointed. But, due to the encroachments made by the petitioners

herein, the contractor was unable to take up the widening of the

road and therefore, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that

the Corporation has issued the notices to remove the

encroachments and opposed the granting of any interim orders.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

Without going into the merits or demerits of the case, and

having regard to the fact that the time granted by the official

respondents in the impugned notices for removing/handing over

the possession, is only three days, this Court is of the opinion that

the time granted is not sufficient to enable the petitioners to seek

their remedies under law. Therefore, the petitioners are granted

seven days time either to give their consent or challenge the

impugned notice before the appropriate Court. The respondents

are directed not to take any coercive steps for a period of one week

WP No.3648 of 2021 AAR,J

from today in respect of the petitioners who have not given their

consent for handing over the possession of the property only.

Insofar as the petitioners, who have given the consent, the

possession will be taken as per the procedure contemplated under

the law.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 16.02.2021.

Note : Issue CC today.

B/o smr/sur