Shanigaram Ramesh vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3475 Tel

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

                      Writ Petition No.30091 of 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus

directing respondent Nos.1 to 5 to handover physical possession of the

land admeasuring 302.5 square yards forming part of Stray-bit Lot No.13

(mentioned in the notification as Lot No.3) of Medchal-Malkajgiri Village,

purchased by the petitioner in an e-auction conducted on 01.03.2023 by

the 5th respondent.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government

Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing

for respondent No.1; learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing

for respondent Nos.2 and 4; Sri B.Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing

Counsel, appearing for respondent No.3 and Smt.D.Madhavi, learned

Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and perused the record.

3. Petitioner contends that in response to the advertisement

dt.06.02.2023 issued by the 5th respondent regarding e-auction proposed

for various stray bit lands located in Ranga Reddy, Medchal-Malkajgiri and

Sanga Reddy Districts, the petitioner had participated in the auction

through online; that he has been declared as a successful bidder for stray-

bit Lot No.13 (Lot No.3 of Medchal-Malkajgiri District) in Sy.No.103

admeasuring 302.5 square yards, Medipally Village and Mandal, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District; that the petitioner being declared as successful bidder

for the aforesaid Lot, he had paid the total bid amount of Rs.1,40,07,100/-

; and that in spite of the aforesaid payment, the respondents-authorities

have not handed over the physical possession of the plot to him, which

action it is contended is highly illegal, arbitrary and capricious.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th

respondent submits that on the petitioner being declared as successful

bidder and on payment of the total bid amount, the 5th respondent

authority has directed respondent Nos.2 and 4 to deliver vacant

possession of the subject plot to the petitioner by conducting a survey

through Mandal Surveyor. Thus, learned Standing Counsel submits that

the 5th respondent is always willing and ready to comply with the terms

and conditions of e-auction.

5. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent

Nos.2 and 4 would submit that when the respondents-authorities

proceeded to delivery vacant possession of the plot to the petitioner, he

did not accept to take delivery of the same, since the frontage of the plot

has been blocked by a construction made by the 3rd respondent and as

such, the authorities could not take further action in the matter.

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the 4th

respondent has addressed a letter dt.25.10.2023 to the 3rd respondent to

remove the said construction made in front side of the subject plot that

has been auctioned by the 5th respondent in favour of the petitioner to

enable the authorities to deliver vacant possession.

7. Learned Government Pleader however submits that till date the 3rd

respondent authority has not removed the construction made in front of

the plot put to e-auction by the 5th respondent.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd

respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the 3rd respondent had

constructed street vending zone on the road margin, which happens to be

in front of the plot of land sold by the 5th respondent through e-auction

process and the said construction was made by the 3rd respondent based

on a resolution passed by the Council of the respective Corporation.

9. Learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent would further

submit that when the said plot of land was brought to auction by the 5th

respondent, the construction was very much in existence and that the

petitioner had purchased the said plot of land knowing fully well the

existence of the construction, and as such, it is not open for him, nor the

respondents-authorities, to direct the 3rd respondent to remove such

construction.

10. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

11. A perusal of the e-auction notification issued by the 5th respondent

shows that the subject plot in Lot No.13 admeasuring 302.5 square yards

has been brought to auction by showing existence frontage of 60 feet

wide road, while the other sides are covered with other properties. It is on

that basis, the petitioner had taken part in the e-auction conducted by the

5th respondent and has been declared as successful bidder. The

respondents-authorities having caused auction of the plot in favour of the

petitioner by showing it as having a facing to existing 60 feet wide road,

cannot now create any hurdle while delivering vacant possession of the

said plot, after collecting the total consideration.

12. Further, the claim of the 3rd respondent of the existence of a street

vending zone, though stated to be on the road margin in front of the plot

even at the time of auction also cannot be accepted, as no such

construction can be allowed on a road margin, even if it is at the behest of

a statutory authority, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v/s. Nawab

Khan Gulab Khan 1.

13. Further, when a similar issue had fallen for consideration before the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Satti

(1997) 11 SCC 121

Madhu Reddy v/s. State of Andhra Pradesh 2 has held that the road

margins are part of road and no construction can be permitted on the

road margin. Thus, the claim of the 3rd respondent that there exists a

street vending zone on the road margin even at the time of conducting of

auction, cannot be accepted as a valid ground to deny access to the plot

that has been brought to auction by the 5th respondent.

14. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that respondent

Nos.2 and 4, in particular the 4th respondent, who is head of the

administration of the District, has to ensure that the construction made by

the 3rd respondent in front of the subject plot is removed and further be

directed to deliver vacant possession of the stray-bit Lot No.13 in

Sy.No.103 admeasuring 302.5 square yards, Medipally Village and Mandal,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, to the petitioner forthwith.

15. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall

stand closed. No order as to costs.

___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:01.11.2023

GJ

MANU/AP/0813/2023=WP.No.9523 of 2020 and batch dt.23.08.2021

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

Writ Petition No.30091 of 2023

01.11.2023

GJ