Disposed

Boddu Parvathi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Oct 2021WP/23666/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging illegal dispossession attempt without notice. Court restrained authority from demolishing or dispossessing encroachers unless due process under Municipal Corporation Act is strictly followed, including exclusion of festival days.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents not to dispossess or demolish the property unless due process of law is strictly followed, including avoiding demolition during festival days.

Boddu Parvathi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23666 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶6

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the property situated at 14Prabhu Nagar, Dolasnagar, Tadepalli, Guntur District (Municipal Property Tax Assessment No.1143014440) of the 1^st petitioner and 14Prabhu Nagar, Dolasnagar, Tadepalli, Guntur District (Municipal Property Tax Assessment No.1143014437) of the 2^nd petitioner without issuing any notice as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure contemplated under the law and violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioners in the houses situated at 14-Prabhu Nagar, Dolasnagar, Tadepalli, Guntur District and pass such other order or orders....”

¶7

The case of the petitioners in nutshell is that the 1^st petitioner is the owner and possessor of the property bearing D.No.14-434/641, 14^th ward, Prabhu Nagar, Dolasnagar, Tadepalli, Guntur District and paying house tax vide assessment No.1143014440 and also obtained power connection vide consumer No.9211506004851.

¶8

The 2^nd petitioner is the owner and possessor of the property bearing D.No.14-434/641, 14^th ward, Prabhu Nagar, Dolasnagar, Tadepalli, Guntur District and paying house tax vide assessment No.1143014437 and has obtained power connection vide consumer No.921150600503.

¶9

Surprisingly, on 09.10.2021, the staff of the 2^nd respondent came to their houses and directed them to vacate

¶10

¶11

the premises within one day without issuing any notice and threatened to dispossess them by force.

¶12

However, again on 10.10.2021, during the afternoon hours, the 2^nd respondent came to the houses of the petitioners and directed them to vacate the houses by the evening of Tuesday i.e., 11.10.2021 with a threat to demolish the houses with JCB’s. Hence the action of the respondents in high handedly attempting to dispossess the petitioners is questioned on the sole ground that no procedure is followed according to Municipal Corporation Act and requested to issue appropriate direction.

¶13

During hearing, learned counsel for petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition.

¶14

Whereas Mr.M.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 contended that they are ready to follow the procedure, since, the petitioners are encroachers of Municipal land and requested to pass appropriate order.

¶15

In view of the submission made by the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the property in their possession except by following due process of law, even though petitioners are encroachers.

¶16

Accordingly, a direction is to be issued leaving it open to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take appropriate action strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under Hyderabad

¶17

¶18

Municipal Corporation Act and at the same time a direction is issued to the respondents not to demolish the constructions if any even by the encroachers on the festival days as held by the Full Bench of the Composite High Court in 3 Aces, Hyderabad

¶19

vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad¹ which reads as follows:

¶20

“ When the Corporation comes to the conclusion, keeping the above guidelines in view, that the construction in question is required to be demolished or pull down, it should follow the procedure indicated below:

¶21

(i) The demolition should not be restored to during festival days declared by the State Government as public holidays excluding Sundays. If the festival day declared by the Government as a public holiday falls on a Sunday, on that Sunday also, the Corporation should not resort to demolition.

¶22

(ii) In any case, there should not be any demolition after sun set and before sun rise.

¶23

(iii) The Corporation should give notice of demolition as required by the statute fixing the date of demolition. Even on the said date, before actually resorting to the demolition, the Corporation should give reasonable time, depending upon the premises sought to be demolished, for the inmates to withdraw from the premises. If within the time given the inmates do not withdraw, the Corporation may proceed with actual demolition;

¶24

These guidelines are laid down in view of the fact that the Corporation is a public authority and its action must be tested on the touchstone of fairness and reasonableness”.

¶25

Keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Full Bench of the Composite High Court in the above judgment, the proposed action to remove the encroachments allegedly made by the petitioners without following due process of law is declared as illegal and arbitrary and consequently the respondents are directed not to demolish the constructions except by following

¶26

1 AIR 1995 AP 17

¶27

¶28

guidelines issued by Full Bench of the Composite High Court in the above judgment.

¶29

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶30

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

¶31

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶32

Date: 12.10.2021 VSL

¶33

¶34

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO.23666 OF 2021

¶36

Date: 12.10.2021

¶37

VSL

Boddu Parvathi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boddu Parvathi, v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangipudi Nagaraju Vs State of Andhra Pradaesh

Y.Govinda Rajulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Purushotham Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Parchiri Srinivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Thanesha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kornu Venkata Ramana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh