The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking protection of land and a hotel from demolition for road widening. The Court directed respondents not to dispossess petitioners without due process.
Directred respondents not to dispossess petitioners from the scheduled property without following due process of law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI/ (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY-OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
^^7
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 4925 OF 2021
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to interdict into the patta land of the Petitioners covered by Sy. No. 186 of Gottipalli Village, Narsannapet, Srikakulam District including the structures standing thereon and the business establishment of Sri Gayathri Lodge & Restaurant without notice or opportunity of hearing as illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere into the same.
lA NO: 1 OF 20^3
Petitioh under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioners to carry necessary repairs to the building and compound wall, illegally demolished by the Respondents.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court, may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners rights in New Sy. No. 186/2 of Oottipalli Village, Narsannapet, Srikakulam including the structures standing thereon and the business establishment of Sri Gayathri Lodge & Restaurant.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section 15! CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the counter on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ . petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. MRS SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: OP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS
Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: None appeared
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
Writ Petition No.4925 of 2021
ORDER:
The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
| “...to issue a order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of |
|---|
| the respondents in seeking to interdict into the patta land of the |
| Petitioners covered by Sy No 186 of Gottipalli Village |
| Narsannapet Srikakulam District including the structures |
| standing thereon and the business establishment of Sri Gayathri |
| Lodge 86 Restaurant without notice or opportunity of hearing as |
| illegal arbitrary highhanded and consequently direct the |
| Respondents not to interfere into the same....” |
Sri V.Apparao purchased an extent of 72 cents in the old Sy.No.278i ,new Sy.No. 186/2 bearing patta No. 129 of Narsannapet under a Registered Sale Dedd dated 02.06.1941 and also purchased an extent of. 60 - extents in old Sy.No.279, new Sy.No. 186/2 bearing patta No. 196 under Registered'Sale Deed ' dated 05.08.1952 from the original owners of the said land.
.. L-i •
2
widening without any prior notice or affording an opportunity to the petitioners, the 2"“. respondent herein filed W.P.No.25784 of 1997 before this Court wherein there was an interim order in W.P.M.P.No.29998 of 1997 dated 01.10.1997 staying all further proceedings, pending the writ petition, which was later on disposed by the Division Bench of this Court on 06.02.1998 along with other batch of writ petitions.
“.... Respondents are directed to maintain Status-quo as on today.”
6. The respondent has filed a detailed counter admitting the facts stated by the petitioner. But, however, the 3rd respondent
3
has stated that Narasannapeta is main Major Panchayat in Srikakulam District and Old NH-5 is only the main arterial road for entire Narasannapeta and having thickly populated area with Main Bus Stand, main bazaars, Shopping Complexes, Hospitals, Offices, Hotels, Colleges and Schools. This road is having huge traffic with passenger vehicles and transport of Agricultural products like wheat, pulses, paddy etc. to the district headquarters. Hence, the traffic is very difficult to negotiate from 8 A;M. to 8 P.M. and it is very essential to widen the Narasannapeta old NH-5 limits from 60 feet tQ 80 feet along with separation with ceritral divider. The Roads and Buildings Department have not demolished the shopping complex constructed by the petitioner in his own land. After handing over the site from the Revenue and Panchayat authorities to the R&B Department, the respondents will start the work by following due process of law and further stated that, in pursuance of the interim order dated 06.02.-1998 granted by this Court in W.P.No.25784'of 1997, no coercive steps have been taken insofar as it relates to demolition of the structures of the petitioners by the R85B authorities. This respondent herein never involved in the process of demolition of the alleged structure. The RScB Department have not demolished the structure of the petitioners and the Department will follow, due
/
4
process of law if the petitioners’ property is required for widening of road or removal of encroachments. 7. In view of the said contents as stated in the counter affidavit and as well as in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, no coercive steps have been taken by the R&B authorities and also the statement made by the R&B Department that they will follow due process of law if at all they require the petitioners’ property for widening the road or removal of the encroachments. Hence, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition by directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the scheduled property at Door No.33/81 vide Sy.No. 186/2 situated near Old Bus Stand, Gottipalli Revenue Village, Narasannapeta Gram Panchayat, Srikakulam District, without following due process of law. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
To,
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTIOhJ^^^ICER FICER
4 Engineer R&B Division. Srikakulam. 5.. TheThe Executive^OfficerDeputy Executive Engineer. R&B.
Srikakulam District,
• The Executive Officer. C er. Gram Panchayat. Narsannapet. Srikakulam District 6. One CC to Sri. MRS Sriniva; 7. , -'■“"-□s. Advocate [OPUC] ^wo ccjto GPfo o'*""" [OUT] 8. TwS §D Copfel HiSh Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9.
csb gi
HIGH COURT
DATED:17/04/2023
rn
I 1 6 AUG 2023
Current Sactlon
ORDER
WP.No.4925 of 2021
1 ’1— <br>
DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners can be dispossessed of their property without following due process of law for road widening.
Whether an interim order in a related writ petition precludes coercive steps by the respondents.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V.V.S.N. Murthy and others
The State of Andhra Pradesh
The District Collector
The Superintending Engineer R&B Division
The Deputy Executive Engineer
The Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Narsannapet
V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
