The Warangal Municipal ... vs Smt.P.Susheela,Hanamkonda,Warangal ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3366 Tel

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                            AND
            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
                              Writ Appeal No.466 of 2011
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

        Heard Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant-        Warangal         Municipal         Corporation   (briefly   'the

Corporation' hereinafter) and Mr. G.Ravi Mohan, learned Senior

Counsel for the respondent.


2.      This intra court appeal is filed against the order

dated 03.06.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge, by which writ

petition viz., W.P.No.23530 of 2006, preferred by the respondent

has been allowed and the Corporation has been directed to

regularize the land in occupation of the respondent on payment of

Rs.3,000/- per square yard within a period of four weeks.


3.      Facts

giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that

some time in the year 1959-1960, the respondent was allotted a plot

admeasuring 200 square yards in Balasamudram area of

Hanmakonda Town. However, the respondent occupied extra 450

square yards of land. A sale deed in favour of the respondent was ::2::

executed on 03.09.1986 in respect of the land admeasuring 200

square yards. Thereafter, sometime in the year 2002, an order was

issued in favour of the respondent in respect of the land

admeasuring 134 square yards. The municipal council, thereupon,

passed a resolution on 31.05.2003 directing regularization of

unauthorized occupation of the land on payment of Rs.2,000/- per

square yard.

4. By the aforesaid resolution, the Commissioner of the

Corporation was directed to take necessary steps. Thereupon, a

memo dated 16.06.2006 was issued to the respondent stating that

the excess land in occupation of the respondent shall be registered

on payment of the present market value. The respondent,

thereupon, asserted the market value from the Registrar's office,

which, according to the respondent, was Rs.1,635/- per square

yard.

5. The respondent thereupon deposited a demand draft for a

sum of Rs.5,42,820/- in respect of the market value of the land @

Rs.1,635/- per square yard. However, despite payment of the ::3::

aforesaid amount, the excess land in occupation of the respondent

was not regularized. Thereupon, the respondent filed the aforesaid

writ petition.

6. The learned Single Judge, by the order dated 03.06.2010,

directed the Corporation to regularize the land in possession of the

respondent @ Rs.3,000/- per square yard within a period of four

weeks. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been

filed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation has

submitted that a provisional resolution was passed on 31.05.2003

by the municipal council and was not acted upon. It is further

submitted that the respondent is in unauthorised occupation of the

land.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has

supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

9. We have considered the rival submissions made on both

sides and have perused the record.

::4::

10. It is not in dispute that the respondent was in unauthorised

occupation of some land. The municipal council has passed a

resolution on 31.05.2003 directing regularization of unauthorised

occupation on payment of market value of the land @ Rs.2,000/-

per square yard. The resolution passed by the municipal council

was neither challenged nor withdrawn. Therefore, the resolution

passed by the municipal council binds the Corporation.

11. Learned Single Judge has noticed that the litigation with

regard to regularization of occupation of the excess land in favour

of the respondent is pending for several decades and therefore,

with a view to give a quietus to the dispute, the respondent has

been directed to pay the market value of the land @ Rs.3,000/- per

square yard.

12. It is pertinent to note that in compliance of the order

dated 03.06.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, the

respondent has paid the amount on 21.06.2010. The aforesaid ::5::

amount has also been accepted by the Corporation and has not

been refunded to the respondent.

13. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, no case for

interference with the order dated 03.06.2010, passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.23530 of 2006, is made out.

14. In the result, Writ Appeal fails and the same is, hereby,

dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

_______________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 20.10.2023 LUR