Disposed

Bala Balaji Pandey v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jun 2023WP/13813/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged a provisional removal order addressing his landlord regarding a shop. The court permitted the petitioner to submit an explanation within two weeks along with documents, directing the authority to consider it in accordance with law post-submission.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner permitted to submit explanation within two weeks; respondent directed to consider same and proceed after hearing parties and verification.

Bala Balaji Pandey Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI | 7°!

¶2

(Special Original jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY. THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 13813 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bala Balaji Pandey, S/o. Pandey Nagarajendra Prasad, Hindu. 45 years. Business, D.No.44-22-59/1, Ramalayam Street. Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. A.P.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban-Development (Budget) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, A.P.

¶13

. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, A.P.

¶14

The Commissioner, Narsipatnam Municipality, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District, A.P.

¶15

The District Collector, Anakapalli District, Anakapalli. A.P.

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District, A.P.

¶17

The Chief Engineer, (Roads and Buildings) and Managing Director, A.P.R.D.C., Mangalagiri, Guntur District, A.P.

¶18

The Special Deputy Collector (L.A), Anakapalli, Anakapalli District, A.P.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 3rd respondent in issuing Roc. NO.71/2017/G1 dt. 17-05-2023 as bad, illegal, and contrary to law and consequently set aside provisional removal Order in respect of Survey No. 360/1. 9th Ward, 38th Block, Venku Naidupeta known as Kwaja Complex Shop No.9, D.No.9-38-2 without following the procedure as contemplated under A.P.

¶21

¶22

Municipalities Act and consequential Principles of natural Justice and consider the representation dt. 31-05-2023 made by petitioner.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of provisional removal/demolition orders in Roc. NO.71/2017/G1 dt. 17-05-2023 pass by the 3rd respondent.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents 4 & 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent 6: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS !

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent 7: GP FOR LAND ACQUUGATION

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent 3: SRI M.MANOHAR REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:zAMARAVATI

¶33

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶34

WRIT PETITION No. 13813 of 2023

¶35

Between:

¶36

Bala balaji Pandey, S/o. Pandey Nagarajendra Prasad, Hindu, 45 years. Business, D.No.44-22-59/1, Ramalayam Street, Railway New Colony,

¶37

Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, A.P.

¶38

Petitioner

¶39

And .

¶40

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration And Urban Development (Budget) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, A.P. and 6 others.

¶41

Respondents

¶42

ORDER;

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶44

learned Standing Counsel for the 3^^ respondent.

¶45

The grievance of the Writ Petitioner is that, there is a threat of dispossession from the Shop No.9 in Kwaja Shopping Complex, Narsipatnam Main Road, Narsipatnam under the guise of enforcement of the impugned proceedings of the S’’'* respondent, dated 17.05.2023.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is running a cell phone shop in Shop No.9 of Kwaja Complex, Narsipatnam Main Road, Narsipatnam by taking it on leasb xvith effect from 11.07.2022 from the landlord

¶47

¶48

of the said shop by name Mr. Syyed Hussain and he is paying monthly rent for the same as per the agreement entered into between the landlord and the tenant. While so, the 3^^ respondent issued the impugned proceedings, dated 17.05.2023 addressing to the landlord Mr. Syyed Hussain, Jemela of Kwaja Complex Main Road, Narsipatnam in the form of provisional removal order to remove the shop within 15 days from the date of the notice for the purpose of road widening as per the provisions of Section 172, 175, 177 R/w Section 336, 340 of APM Act, 1965 and under Section 83, 88, 89 and 90 of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Regulation andand Urban Development Authority Act, 2016. 15 days time is given for filing reply by the said landlord.

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, this impugned notice, dated 17.05.2023 is given for the purpose of road widening by converting the existing road to 100 feet width road and for the said purpose, the said building is directed to be removed for public purpose under the ***** above said provisions of law. He further contends that the respondent ought to have issued similar notice to the petitioner also, as he is a tenant of the said shop and equally ought to have applied the law in the case of the tenant also.

¶50

¶51

¶52

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that, the respondent authority has no obligation to issue any such notice to the petitioner, as it was duly addressed to the landlord of the subject property and the procedure is being followed under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner cannot seek continuation of lease for the subject property, as per the alleged agreement entered into between the petitioner and his landlord, which is not binding on the respondent corporation.

¶53

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is to be seen that the landlord is not before this Court questioning the said proceedings of the 3’’^ respondent, dated 17.05.2023. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of the subject shop covered under the impugned notice, dated 17.05.2023. The said notice enables the addressee therein to submit explanation, within 15 days for the purpose of proceeding in the matter as per law. In view of the same, the petitioner is also permitted to submit his explanation within two (02) weeks from today to the said impugned notice of the 3*’d respondent, dated 17.05.2023 along with necessary documents. On receipt of the same, the 3”* respondent is directed -to consider the same, strictly in accordairce with law and he shall proceed with the impugned notice, dated 17.05.2023 by following the due procedure. After hearing all the parties

¶54

¶55

¶56

concerned giving due opportunity and upon verification of the

¶57

records and the subject shop, an appropriate decision shall be

¶58

taken on it’s own merits.

¶59

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶60

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall

¶61

stand closed.

¶62

)

¶63

Sd/- M.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT R^ISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTIOMJWICER

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban-Development (Budget) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, A.P.

¶68

The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Mangalagiri Guntur District, A.P.

¶69

The Commissioner, Narsipatnam Municipality, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District, A.P.

¶70

The District Collector, Anakapalli District, Anakapalli, A.P. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District, A.P. 6. The Chief Engineer, (Roads and Buildings) and Managing Director, A.P.R.D.C., Mangalagiri, Guntur District, A.P.

¶71

The Special Deputy Collector (L.A), Anakapalli, Anakapalli District, A.P.

¶72

One CC to Sri P R K Amerandra Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Muhcipal Admn Urban Dev, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶73

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] 11. Two CCs to GP for R & B, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] 12. Two CCs to GP for LA, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] 13.0ne.CC to Sri M.Manohar Reddy, SC for Municipal Corporation 14. Two CD Copies

GSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:14/06/2023

ORDER

WP.No.13813of 2023

(9:
>iiAueai23
Section . I

¶81

s< \ 1"^

¶82

DISPOSED OFWP WITHOUT COSTS

Bala Balaji Pandey v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bala Balaji Pandey 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

T. Subramanyam Goud, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rahul Builders Vs the State of Ap

Maruthi Constructions Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V Saraswathi Vs the State of Ap

M Mouna Priya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mamidi Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh