Disposed

Maddipati Venkata Rama Krishana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Sept 2021WP/19321/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of writ petitions filed by landowners challenging arbitrary demolition by the 5th Respondent under the National Highway Act. Directing a joint survey for demarcation of road margins, the court mandated that eviction or demolition can occur only under the Act, while compensation must be paid if lands fall outside road margins.

What did the court decide?

Directed joint survey of lands for demarcating road margins; eviction/demolition allowed under Act if encroachment found; compensation liable if lands fall outside margins.

Maddipati Venkata Rama Krishana, Vs The State of… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.18846, 19321, 19613 and

¶2

19614 of 2021

¶3

COMMONORDER:

¶4

The petitioners in all these writ petitions are claiming ownership and possession over various plots of lands adjoining the National Highway 516D notified under the Gazette notification dated 23.01.2019. This National Highway was earlier known as the Jangareddy Gudem main road.

¶5

The complaint of the petitioners is that the 5^th respondent, without following law had commenced arbitrary and high handed demolition of the houses and structures of the petitioners, which had been built by the petitioners within the lands owned by them.

¶6

Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel submits that there has been a partial demolition of houses of his clients in W.P.Nos.18846 of 2021 and 19614 of 2021 and the said demolition has been carried out without any prior notice or opportunity being given to the petitioners.

¶7

Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel submits that even though there has been no demolition of the structures of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.19321 of 2021 and 19613 of 2021, the respondents are taking steps to take up demolition of the said structures.

¶8

¶9

Both the learned counsel would also submit that the entire exercise is arbitrary and illegal on two grounds.

¶10

Firstly, the 5^th respondent or other officials of the Roads & Buildings Department cannot take up demolition of houses of the petitioners in relation to the National Highway, as they are not empowered under the National Highway Act to take up such a task.

¶11

Secondly, the respondents cannot unilaterally take over the lands belonging to the petitioners and demolish the structures thereon without following the due process of payment of compensation to the petitioners.

¶12

The learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings has placed a notification issued in the Gazette of India, dated 23.01.2019 under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 for the purposes of empowering officers mentioned in column No.2 of the table in that notification to exercise all necessary powers under the said Act in relation to the National Highway set out in Column No.4 of the said table. The Executive Engineer, Roads and Bridge, National Highways Division, Vijayawada has been authorized at Sl.No.30 to exercise these powers in relation to the new National Highway 516D in relation to the stretch between Deverapalli to Jeelugumilli Road. He submits that in that view of the matter, the respondent authorities have the necessary authorization and power to take steps to clear the encroachments on the road.

¶13

¶14

It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the road margins were demarcated and it was found that the petitioners had encroached on the land falling within the road margin of the said highway and thereupon a general notice was issued calling upon the petitioners to voluntarily remove their encroachments. As no such steps were taken by the petitioner, the respondents under took demolition activity.

¶15

Even though, the respondents can claim to have due authorization for clearing encroachments, the said authorization can only be exercised strictly in accordance with law, which would require the respondents to initiate action by way of issuing notice under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to demonstrate their title over the land and to take further action only after satisfying themselves that their action is in accordance with law.

¶16

In these circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions.

¶17

1. The respondents including the Tahsildar of the area will conduct a survey of the lands for demarcating the road margins, in the presence of the petitioners or their representatives.

¶18

1. If the respondents take the stand that there have been encroachments by the petitioners in the

¶19

¶20

road margins, it would be open to the respondents to initiate action for eviction of the petitioners to the extent of the road margins by following the procedure set out in the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002.

¶21

If the respondents find that the lands in the occupation of the petitioners fall outside the road margins, the respondents shall not enter into the said lands or undertake any demolition in the lands until adequate compensation is paid to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶23

shall stand closed.

¶24

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶25

08.09.2021 SDP

¶26

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶28

W.P.Nos.18846, 19321, 19613 and

¶29

19614 of 2021

¶30

08-09-2021

¶31

SDP

Maddipati Venkata Rama Krishana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maddipati Venkata Rama Krishana, 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

V.Ajay Kumar Vs Sri. Rajsekhar, IAS

P. Malleswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Thunugtmtla Chakrapani Gupta and Co, Vs Mannava Subba Rao

Sri Kamakshamma Siddeswara Swamy Alaya Development and Seva Trust Vs The State of A.P.

M/s Tirumala Constructions Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.V.V. Surya Prasad Vs Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam