Allowed

Meda Murali Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jul 2022WP/20549/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Petitioner challenging the Kadapa Municipal Corporation's order to demolish a compound wall and remove encroachments was directed not to take coercive action without issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent not to demolish the compound wall except in accordance with law, after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing.

Meda Murali Krishna Vs The State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20549 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner, who is said to have purchased an extent of admeasuring 136.11 sq.yards situated in Dis.Nos.38/2, 3/1A1, 4^th ward, corporation ward No.59 in Akkayapalli, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa Town, YSR Kadapa District by way of registered deed of sale dated 14.09.2017 and another extent of admeasuring of 125.22 sq.yards in the same plot by way of registered deed of sale dated 16.09.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner constructed a RCC building on the initial extent of 136.11sq.yards, on the basis of the building permit obtained by his vendor and also raised a shed in the remaining land in the year 2017 itself. The petitioner has also said to have been constructed a compound wall upon this property and been paid the municipal tax since then.

¶5

The petitioner now approached this Court with a complaint that the officials of the 2^nd respondent had sought to remove the compound wall on the eastern side of the plot and had granted two days of time to the petitioner dated 12.07.2022 filing which the officials of the 2^nd respondent would demolish the compound wall.

¶6

Aggrieved by the said inaction of the official of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, complaining that the said action are clearly highhanded and arbitrary are not in accordance with the

¶7

¶8

procedure set out in the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965.

¶9

Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, on instructions, submits that the petitioner had encroached into the road margins of the road being this property and had constructed a compound wall which was an illegal construction. He further submits that this fact was pointed to the petitioner by the official of the 2^nd respondent and no further action taken by them would be in accordance with law.

¶10

In the view of the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent and official of the 2^nd respondent not to demolish the compound wall of the petitioner on the eastern side of the plot mentioned above, except in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶11

Needless to say that no coercive steps shall be taken without giving notice to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

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

¶13

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶14

21.07.2022 BSM/RKS

¶15

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.20549 of 2022

¶18

21.07.2022

¶19

BSM/RKS

Meda Murali Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meda Murali Krishna 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

Vuyyuru Borra Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolli Subhas Chandra Bose at Bose, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr.Likhil Kumar Vs M/s.Vystar Enbterprises

G.Venkataramana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Jogiraju at Raja Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lakku Venkata Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh