Dismissed

Chinni Narayana Swamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jun 2023WP/11835/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Gram Panchayat's attempt to demolish petitioners' sheds. The court held that despite the petitioners' complaints about procedural lapses, they failed to avail an open offer to shift to new shops in a newly built complex. This conduct, spanning six years, constituted an abuse of process and approbating and reprobating the court, warranting di

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs; interim applications were closed.

Chinni Narayana Swamy Vs The State of Andhra… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAj (Special Original Jurisdiction) © TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

. *0
'4 %

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11835 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Chinni Narayana Swamy, S/o Sulka=lkzariaiah Aged about: 66 Yrs, Occ: Petty Business R/o Karatampadu Atmakur Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District

¶9

Shaik Khasimbee, D/o P. Jafar Khan Aged about: 51 Yrs, Occ: Petty Business R/o Karatampadu (Vil), Atmakur Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District

¶10

Vangapati Ramanaiah, S/o Ramaiah Aged about: 65 Yrs, Occ: Petty Business R/o Karatampadu (Vil), Atmakur Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District

¶11

Shaik Basha, S/o Nanne Saheb Aged about: 60 Yrs, Occ: Petty Business R/o Karatampadu (Vil), Atmakur Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District

¶12

Shaik Sardar, S/o Mardan Pedda Babji Aged about: 33 Yrs, Occ: Petty Business R/o Karatampadu (Vil), Atmakur Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad (Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District)

¶16

2. The District Panchayat Officer, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District 3. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Atmakur Mandal, Atmakur, S.P.S.R. Nellore District

¶17

4. The Karatampadu Gram Panchayat, Karatampadu (Vil), Atmakur Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary

¶18

...RESPOMDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4*” respondent in trying to demolish the shops of the petitioners in Karatampadu (Vil), Atmakur Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District without giving notice, without following the procedure contemplated under Section 98 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to demolish the shops of the petitioners situated in Karatampadu (Vil), Atmakur Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave for receiving the Reply Affidavit in Writ Petition No. 11835 of 2017.

¶22

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 14735 OF 2017)

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to demolish the shops of the petitioners situated in Karatampadu (Vii), Atmakur Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. CH C KRISHNA REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1,2: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3,4: G SESHADRI(SC FOR IVIPP,ZPP)

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

¶29

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶30

WRIT PETITION No. 11835 OF 2017

¶31

ORAL ORDER;

¶32

Heard Sri Ch. C. Krishna Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri Anudeep Nanduri, Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 fis 4 and Sri Vidya Sagar, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development for Respondent Nos. l and 2.

¶33

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the five (05) Petitioners are in occupation of some shops in Karatampadu Village, Atmakur Mandal, S.P.S.R Nellore District. The contents of the Writ Petition, as stated in the Affidavit are to the effect that the Gram Panchayat is contemplating to demolish the shops without following the due procedure contemplated under Section 98 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act and that the same is arbitrary. They have sought Interim Protection from this Hon’ble Court against demolition.

¶34

Byj Order dated 03.04.2017, the Petitioners have secured an Interim Order in W.P.M.P.No. 14735 of 2017 as

¶35

under:

¶36

¶37

“Notice. There shall be status quo with regard to the subject shops of the petitioners. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law.”

¶38

As the matter thus stood for consideration before this Court, the 4th Respondent has filed the Counter Affidavit. The contents of the Counter Affidavit are significant and

¶39

therefore, are being extracted hereunder:

¶40

“3. I submit that in reply to para 2 of the affidavit, it is true that the petitioners are doing petty businesses by having sheds in the street leading from Karatampadu centre in Bombay highway Road. I submit that the petitioners never paying taxes in respect to the said shops and the said statement is out and out false and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. I submit that the petitioners doing their respective businesses as stated in the said para.

¶41

I submit that in reply to paras 3 and 4 of the affidavit, the allegation that the 4'^ respondent Gram Panchayat trying to demolish the shops without giving any notice without following due procedure is out and out false and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. I submit that the Gram Panchayat constructed the shopping complex opposite to the subject shops and the Gram Panchayat asked the petitioners to shift their businesses into the new shopping complex. I submit that the petitioners refused to shift their business into the new shopping complex. I submit that when the petitioners refused to vacate the illegal encroachments, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution dated 12.03.2016 resolving that the said illegal encroachments shall be removed for the purpose of road widening and also intimated to the petitioners. I submit that the petitioners agreed to vacate the existing encroached place and to

— r> ^^9

.*.1 I li

shift their businesses into the new shopping complex. I submit that without intimation to the Gram Panchayat and without vacating the encroached place, they filed the present writ petition.

¶46

I submit that in fact the Gram Panchayat kept the five shops as vacant in the new shopping complex to allot the same to the petitioners. But the petitioners without cooperating with the Gram Panchayat in order to widening the road and approached this Honble Court. I submit that the petitioners are not cooperating with the Gram Panchayat to develop the village. I submit that the Gram Panchayat intent to serve notices to the petitioners to evict them from the encroached place by following procedure as directed by this Honble Court. I submit that there are no merits in the writ petition. I submit that the petitioners approached this Honble Court with unclean hands and the same is liable to be dismissed.”

¶47

From the averments made in the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.4, it is clear that the Writ Petitioners are doing petty businesses by erecting sheds in the street leading from Karatampadu Centre in Bombay Highway Road; that the Writ Petitioners were not paying taxes; that the Gram Panchayat constructed Shopping Complex opposite to the subject Shops; the Gram Panchayat, therefore, requested the Petitioners to shift their businesses to the Shops constructed in the Shopping Complex with a view to demolish the present sheds of the Petitioners.for the purpose of Road expansion; that the land

¶48

¶49

in which the present sheds were erected by the Petitioners belong to the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the Gram Panchayat passed a Resolution dated 12.03.2016 resolving that the said illegal encroachments shall be removed for the purpose of Road widening; that the Petitioners agreed to vacate the existing encroached area and shift their businesses into the new Shopping Complex; that without cooperating with the Gram Panchayat, the Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court and got an Interim Order. It is also stated in the Counter Affidavit dated 10.04.2017 that the Gram Panchayat intend to develop the Village and that they intend to widen the existing Road and in this regard, the five shops which were offered to the Writ Petitioners in the new shopping complex are kept vacant.

¶50

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has submitted that the Writ Petition^ ers have filed a Re-joinder. On perusal of the Re-joinder, it transpires that this Re joinder has been filed on 12.03.2023. The Writ Petitioners have not denied the fact that they have been squatting on the public property. It is further stated

¶51

¶52

that there are no shops which are kept vacant in the new Shopping Complex.

¶53

While, the Respondents have categorically stated in their Counter Affidavit way back on 10.04.2017 that they have kept five shops vacant to enable the Writ Petitioners to occupy the same, the Re-joinder filed on 12.03.2023 (6 years later) would state that there are no shops kept vacant in favour of the Writ Petitioners.. From the date of filing pf the Counter Affidavit way back on 10.04.2017 about six years have passed by the time the Re-joinder has been filed (Re-joinder is filed on 12.03.2023). After passage of six years, this Court is of the opinion, that it does not lie in the mouth of the Writ Petitioners to contend that there are no vacant shops in the new Shopping Complex because it cannot be expected that the Panchayat could keep the five shops unoccupied for six long years when the Writ Petitioners are unwilling to occupy those shops. Even through the Counter Affidavit, the Respondent No.4 has given an open offer to the Writ Petitioners to come and

¶54

occupy the vacant shops.

¶55

¶56

For six long years, while this matter was pending on the file of this Court, the Writ Petitioners did not avail the offer given by the Respondent No.4 to the Writ Petitioners. Today, it does not lie in the mouth of the Writ Petitioners to say that the Writ Petitioners cannot be evicted without following the due procedure under Section 98 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act. The Writ Petitioners are not permitted to blow hot and cold, approbate and reprobate and take different stands. When it was resolved by the Panchayat that the iUegal encroachments have to be removed while giving offer to the Writ Petitioners to shift their businesses into the shops lying in the new shopping Complex, this Court is of the view that the approach and conduct of the Writ Petitioners in filing the present Writ Petition and also f --cuuon ana also in not availing the offer that is given by the Respondents not only prior to the filing of the Writ Petition but also subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition in the form of the Counter Affidavit that the Shops are kept vacant, this Court cannot extend any further benefit in favour of the Writ Petitioners.

¶57

¶58

¶59

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition is an abuse of process besides being devoid of any merit. Since the Writ Petitioners are doing petty businesses, this Court has taken a lenient view in not imposing any exemplary costs in approaching the Court by way of the present Writ Petition. 10. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.,

¶60

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

¶61

SD/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT! REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad (Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District) 2. The District Panchayat Officer, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District 3. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Atmakur Mandal, Atmakur, S.P.S.R. Nellore District 4. The Karatampadu Gram Panchayat, Karatampadu (Vil), Atmakur Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary 5. One CC to SRI. CH C Krishna Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Dev (AP) ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. One CC to SRI. G Seshadri(SC for MPP,ZPP) Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies. KRK

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/06/2023

s?
'X
I

ORDER

WP.No.11835of 2017

¶68

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Chinni Narayana Swamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinni Narayana Swamy 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

P.V.N. Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Supplies Department

S.V. Surya Brahmeswara Rao S/o Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mannem Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Pathivada Ramanamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Maddala Mahalakshmi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

India Rural Evangelical Fellowship, Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by its Prl. Secretary