Dismissed

K.Shankar Gupta v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Nov 2019WP/17753/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court acknowledged that the relevant department had not sanctioned road widening work or taken steps for removal of structures in Vinukonda Town. It closed the writ petition declaring no immediate illegality was established, while granting liberty to re-agitate if rights are later prejudiced.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to re-agitate rights as and when apprehended that they are prejudiced. Pending interlocutory applications stood closed.

K.Shankar Gupta Vs The State of Andhra… — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.17753 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.3 to 7 in resorting to demolish the petitioners business premises bearing Door Nos.23-14, 23-16, 23-15/1&2, 23-17/18, 23-19/20, 23-21/22, 23-24, 23-27, 23-28, 29-30, 23-32/1&2 and 23-33-34 situated at Palnadu Road, Vinukonda, Guntur District on the pretext of road widening without issuing any notice and affording an opportunity to the petitioners to submit their case and without initiating acquisition proceedings, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction.

¶4

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration representing respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.2 & 9, Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel representing respondent No.3, none represents on behalf of respondent No.4 and learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings representing respondent Nos.5 to 8.

¶5

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings on instructions, would submit that at present R&B officials are not doing any work in relation to the widening of the existing road in Vinukonda Town and they have not taken any steps for removal of any structures in Vinukonda Town

¶6

¶7

limits and apart from that R&B department is not competent to take steps for demolition or removal of encroachments. It is further submitted that no work is sanctioned for widening of any road in Vinukonda town limits.

¶8

4. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is closed giving liberty to the petitioners to re-agitate their rights as and when they apprehend that their rights in respect of the properties bearing Door Nos.23-14, 23-16, 23-15/1&2, 23-17/18, 23-19/20, 23-21/22, 23-24, 23-27, 23-28, 29-30, 23-32/1&2 and 23-33-34 situated at Palnadu Road, Vinukonda, Guntur District, are prejudiced. No costs.

¶9

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

__________________________

¶11

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶12

13.11.2019. MS

K.Shankar Gupta v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Shankar Gupta v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kasina Veera Bhadra Rama Prasad Vs Rudraraju Rajesh Varma

Smt. Juthuka Suryakumari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Jorige Hima Bindu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sali Raghavulu Vs the State of Ap

S Nagarathna, Chittoor Dist Vs Dist Collector, Chittoor Dist and 2 Others

Satya Sai Educational Society, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh