Partly allowed

B. Manoharamma v. The Nandyal Municipality

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Jul 2021WP/13352/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court disposed of a writ petition challenging municipality demolition notices on Waqf land. The petition, filed under Article 226, sought to declare the notices arbitrary and illegal. The court set aside the final notice, directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' explanation within two weeks, and prohibited coercive steps pending resolution.

What did the court decide?

Final notice dated 30.6.2021 set aside; petitioners directed to submit explanation within two weeks; coercive steps restrained.

B. Manoharamma Vs The Nandyal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.13352 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondent municipality in threatening to demolish the houses/shops/open spaces under construction of the petitioners (classified as waqf lands even according to 1^st respondent), without supplying the alleged report of the District Collector and Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board to the petitioners is arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere or demolish the subject property of the petitioners.

¶5

Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Bharadwaj Associates, counsel for the petitioners and of Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned standing counsel for 1^st and 2^nd respondents.

¶6

As per the averments of the writ petition, all the petitioners are the owners and possessors of the land admeasuring 2 to 25 cents in Sy.Nos.47, 228, 231, 236, 237, 239 of Nunepallly Village (Rythunagaram), Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District, having inherited the same under registered sale deeds/agreement of sale. Learned senior counsel has questioned the impugned provisional notice of demolition issued by the 1^st respondent municipality on 19.6.2021 and final notice on 30.6.2021 on the ground that the subject property is a wakf property and the question of obtaining permission from the respondent municipality does not arise and only the 3^rd respondent i.e. Wakf, which has regulatory power concerning the waqf property.

¶7

¶8

Hence the impugned notices issued on 19.6.2021 and 30.6.2021 are without having any jurisdiction. Hence the writ petition.

¶9

Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners were not inclined to submit any reply to the provisional notice issued on 19.6.2021. Even if the petitioners have any exemption under the Special Act, the petitioners are at liberty to brought to the notice of the same to the respondents. Without doing so, they have not submitted any reply. Having no option the respondents have issued final notice.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions, with the consent of both sides, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, setting aside the impugned final notice dated 30.6.2021 directing the petitioners to submit their explanation to the notice dated 19.6.2021 including the jurisdictional aspects, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such explanation, the respondents are directed to consider the same as per Rules and pass appropriate orders within two (02) weeks, which shall be communicated to the petitioners. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the notice dated 30.06.2021.

¶11

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶12

______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶13

Date: 12.07.2021 Note : Issue C.C. in (02) days B/o. Pnr

¶14

¶15

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.13352 OF 2021

¶17

Dated 12.07.2021

¶18

Pnr

B. Manoharamma v. The Nandyal Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Manoharamma v. The Nandyal Municipality

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

Meetalal Jain, Vs The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Konijeti Srirama Murthy Vs Durjeti Sucheta

Shabnum Ahmad, Vs Thota Jagadeeswararao at Jaggayya

Vuriti Suryabhagavan Vs Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Gandikota Edukondalu and Another Vs The District Collector

S. Hanuman Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh