Basaboina Satyanarayana And 12 ... vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3998 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                    WRIT PETITION No.11361 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the

action 2nd respondent in seeking to acquire the land and building of the

petitioners to the extent of 10 feet to 15 feet length covered by H.No.3-96,

H.No.3-80, H.No.3-95, H.No.3-102, H.No.3-78, H.No.3-76, H.No.4-22,

H.No.4-24, H.No.3-77, H.No.3-166, H.No.3-106/1, H.No.4-30 and H.No.3-

101 respectively situated at Vardhannapet town, Warangal Rural District for

the purpose of laying drainage Channel at a distance of 50 feet from the

centre of the main road leading from Warangal to Thorrur and also to

declare the notice issued by the 2nd respondent without number and date, as

illegal and arbitrary.

2. Sri A.Kranti Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners,

submits that the respondents in the process of acquiring the land and

building of the petitioner to an extent of 10 feet to 15 feet length situated at

Vardhannapet town, Warangal Rural District, for the purpose of laying

drainage channel at the distance of 50 feet from the centre of the main road

leading from Warangal to Thorrur, have issued a notice to the petitioners

stating that the petitioners are encroachers and directed them to submit the

documents. Learned counsel submits that in the earlier round of litigation,

the petitioners have filed W.P.No.20689 of 2020 and as per the interim order

dated 18.11.2020 of this Court, the respondents have issued a show-cause

notice and the petitioners have submitted their reply. Without considering

the said reply, the respondents have issued the impugned order dated

06.04.2021 stating that the documents that are submitted by the petitioners

are not registered documents; copy of the gram panchayat approval was

submitted and these documents were issued with Sarpanch's signature and

the approval documents were not issued by the Panchayat Secretary; there

are no signature and stamp of licensed surveyor on the building plan; in the

documents submitted by the petitioners from 1997 to 2008 the highway road

is shown as 80 feet road, but as per the 1997 document and as per the Gram

Panchayat there is 100 feet road; even as per proceedings of 2016, the road

was transferred to National Highways Authority from R & B and it is

declared that no land acquisition is required. Further, it is stated in the

impugned order that after observing all the records, it is stated that

petitioners occupied 100 feet road and ordered that all the illegal

constructions must be demolished within four days or else they will take

appropriate action. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have

constructed the shops after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat

and they have been in occupation of the property from a very long time.

According to the petitioners, they have not encroached the road. He submits

that in view of the petitioners' long standing possession, by way of

impugned order of this nature, they cannot evict the petitioners. He has also

relied on the judgment of this Court, which is confirmed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala

Krishna Rao, bandi Venkatarama Rao, Valluri Kesava Rao1 and submits

that the respondent Municipality, basing on their own documents, cannot

decide that there is a road and petitioners have made constructions on the

road. He submits that the respondents have no authority to direct the

petitioners to remove the encroachments, particularly in the light of the

petitioners' long standing possession.

3. Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, has filed counter-

affidavit stating that initially when the matter came up on 28.04.2021, this

Court has granted interim order directing the official respondents not to take

any coercive steps and from thereon, they could not carry out the

developmental works. He submits that the road is single road and

subsequently made into double road with divider side road. Further, the

road is 60 feet from the centre point and mentioned about the proceedings of

the R & B Department of 1976, wherein it is mentioned that Warangal to

Khammam road width is 100 feet and it is submitted that all the major roads

LAWS (SC) 1982 3 4

under R & B which are interconnecting districts are 100 feets wide as per the

Government norms. It is stated that when the petitioners assert title to the

property, no document has been filed. Further, basing on permission

obtained from the Gram Panchayat and when there is no signature on the

said documents, the petitioners cannot contend that they are the owners of

the property and they cannot assert that they are having long standing

possession. Hence, the interim order passed by this Court on 28.04.2021 has

to be vacated. As the petitioners could not make out any ground, the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The admitted facts are that the petitioners have constructed shops and

they are in occupation of the same for the past three decades. The case of

the petitioners is that they are the owners of the property and they have been

residing. Even if assuming that the petitioners are encroachers, they cannot

be evicted summarily. According to the respondent Corporation, it is a

public road and the petitioners have encroached the road margin and

constructions are made. What is the width of the road and what are the

encroachments had to be determined by conducting a survey in the presence

of the petitioners. They cannot issue proceedings just like that. The

petitioners should also be given an opportunity by giving the relevant

documents to them. Hence, basing on the documents available, a survey

should be conducted by the respondents in the presence of the petitioners

and thereafter they shall pass appropriate orders. If the petitioners are

aggrieved by the same, they are always at liberty to question the same.

Without conducting such survey, basing on a notice and reply, passing of the

impugned order is unsustainable. Hence, the order impugned is set aside.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the

impugned order dated 06.04.2021. The respondents are directed to conduct

a survey along with R & B and the National Highways in the presence of the

petitioners and then they shall pass a final order. The entire exercise shall be

completed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order. Till such time, no coercive action shall be taken. Further, in

the final orders minimum 10 days time shall be given to the petitioners and

the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J August 1, 2022 Note:

Issue C.C. in two days.

(b/o) mar