Disposed

B.Chenamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Nov 2021WP/10716/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging notices to remove constructions, the High Court directed the Municipal Corporation to verify the petitioners' explanation and possession documents. The court ordered maintenance of status quo and allowed time for petitioners to submit further proofs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to verify explanation, allow additional objections, and maintain status quo.

B.Chenamma Vs The State of Andhra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10716 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri V.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kalava Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Municipality, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶5

Notices bearing Rc.No.9653/2012/G3 dated 07.05.2021 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Kurnool, respondent No.2 herein, are under challenge in the present Writ Petition. By way of the impugned notices, respondent No.2 herein directed the petitioners to remove the constructions made by them within a period of three days from the date of receipt of the said notices. According to the petitioners, as advocated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.Venkateswarlu, they are the labourers and belong to below poverty line and belong to downtrodden communities, such as, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Minorities and that they migrated to Kurnool from the nearby villages. It is stated that respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation of Kurnool constructed municipal quarters for providing houses to the houseless poor about 40 years back and on completion of the construction of the said quarters, the Municipal Corporation also allotted the quarters to the houseless poor who occupied the quarters and have been living in the said quarters. It is stated that there is a left over place in the said land after

¶6

¶7

construction of the said quarters and the petitioners have occupied the said land and each of them have been in occupation of approximately 100 square feet and according to the petitioners, they are in possession since long back. It is also the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 assessed the house and levied the house taxes by assigning the house numbers. It is also the case of the petitioners herein that some of the petitioners were also issued pattas by the revenue authorities in the year 2009 and also possession certificates in 2011. It is also the case of the petitioners herein that they have been paying house taxes in regular manner to respondent No.2 so also the electricity charges. Now respondent No.2 herein by way of the impugned notices dated 07.05.2021 issued under Sections 402, 405 and 406 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1955, asked the petitioners herein to vacate the subject land by removing the constructions within three days. It is stated that the petitioners herein also submitted explanation to the said notices on 08.05.2021. It is not the case of the respondentMunicipal Corporation Authorities that any orders are passed thereafter.

¶8

Since it is the case of the petitioners herein that some of the petitioners have been granted pattas and the possession certificates and they submitted explanation dated 08.05.2021 in response to the impugned notices dated 07.05.2021, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation to verify the said

¶9

¶10

explanation dated 08.05.2021 said to have been submitted by the petitioners herein and pass appropriate orders/take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law. The petitioners herein, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, are also entitled to file an additional explanation/objections, if any, to the impugned notices within a period of two weeks from today, enclosing all the documents in support of their claim over the subject properties for consideration by the respondents. It is also made clear that till a decision is taken by the respondent-Municipal Corporation Authorities thereafter, status quo as on today with regard to the subject constructions shall be maintained.

¶11

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.

¶12

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶13

___________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

Date: 05.11.2021

siva

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.10716 OF 2021

¶19

Date: 05.11.2021

¶20

siva

B.Chenamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Chenamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C Abdul Rawoof Vs S Purushotham Reddy

Lagudu Ramaswamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tarigopula Sanjeeva Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Nagarajaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolla Venkata Naga Prasad. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh.

Salapu Ramu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh