Disposed

Mamidi Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jun 2023WP/13818/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a writ petition by a tenant regarding a provisional removal order issued to the landlord for road widening. It permitted the petitioner to submit an explanation and directed the authority to consider it.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the petitioner to submit an explanation within two weeks; respondent directed to consider the same before proceeding.

Mamidi Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION No.13818 of 2023

¶2

Between:

¶3

Mamidi Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Ramana, Hindu, aged about years, Managing Partner, South Central Shopping Mall, Main Road, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District, A.P.

¶4

....... Petitioner

¶5

And

¶6

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.

¶7

...... Respondents

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶10

The grievance of the Writ Petitioner is that, there is a threat of dispossession from the South Central Shopping Mall, Narsipatnam Main Road, Narsipatnam under the guise of the enforcement of the impugned proceedings of the 3^rd respondent, dated 17.05.2023.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is running South Central Shopping Mall, Narsipatnam Main Road, Narsipatnam by taking it on lease with effect from 14.03.2022 from the landlord of the said shop by

¶12

¶13

name Mr. Ravada Ramu 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^rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings, dated 17.05.2023 addressing to the landlord Mr. Ravada Ramu, Ravada Narayanappa and others, South Central Shopping Mall, 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 and Urban Development Authority Act, 2016. 15 days time is given for filing reply by the said landlord.

¶14

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 into 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 3^rd 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.

¶15

¶16

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd 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.

¶17

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^rd 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 an 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^rd respondent, dated 17.05.2023 along with the necessary documents. On receipt of the same, the 3^rd respondent is directed to consider the same, strictly in accordance with law and he shall proceed with the impugned notice, dated 17.05.2023 by following the due procedure. After hearing all

¶18

¶19

the parties concerned giving due opportunity and upon verification of the records and the subject shop, an appropriate decision shall be taken on it’s own merits.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

stand closed.

¶23

_______________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶24

14.06.2023 KMS

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶27

WRIT PETITION No. 13818 OF 2023

¶28

14.06.2023

¶29

KMS

Mamidi Venkateswara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamidi Venkateswara Rao, 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

Bala Balaji Pandey Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh