Disposed

T. Subramanyam Goud, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jun 2023WP/6537/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-proceeding of a notice regarding alleged road encroachment. It held that the notice should be treated as notice only, directing the authority to give the encroacher an opportunity to explain and complete an enquiry within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice treated as notice only; 4th respondent given opportunity to submit explanation within 3 weeks; enquiry completed within 3 months.

T. Subramanyam Goud, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.6537 of 2022

¶4

T. Subramanyam Goud, S/o late Vasavarappa, aged about 52 years, Occ: R/o. Palamaner, Chittoor District.

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District 3 others.

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

Heard Sri K. G. Krishna Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, the learned Senior Counsel for the 4^th respondent and Sri N. Ranga Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶10

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 3^rd respondent in not proceeding with the impugned notice dated 10.11.2021 when the 4^th respondent encroached the municipal public road in an extent of 8 feet on northern side even after receipt of the petitioner’s representation dated 23.11.2021.

¶11

¶12

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner’s wife submitted a representation to the 3^rd respondent dated 23.11.2021 stating that, the 4^th respondent encroached upon a public road situated in the 6^th ward to an extent of 8 feet under the guise of construction of house building basing upon the building permission granted by the 3^rd respondent. Pursuant to the said complaint, the 3^rd respondent issued notice dated 10.11.2021 to the 4^th respondent stating that, the municipality road margin is encroached upon by the 4^th respondent and as such, he is directed to remove the said encroachment within 3 days from the date of receipt of this notice. Since, there is no progress in the matter, the petitioner’s wife also approached the Public Information Officer, under the Right to Information Act rising four questions, for which, the Information Officer issued the proceedings dated 22.12.2021 answering for the 2^nd question therein to the effect that, the building construction is made without leaving 5 feet margin for the purpose of road widening in future. Except this as there is no progress in the matter, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶13

On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent submits that, the 4^th

¶14

¶15

respondent purchased the house building in Survey No.614, 4^th Ward of Palamaner Municipality in 257 Sq.yards through a registered sale deed dated 18.01.2021 and the building permission was given on 25.05.2021 on the application of the 4^th respondent dated 05.05.2021.

¶16

Since the petitioner demanded Rs.3 Lakhs as bribe, as it was not paid, the petitioner filed this writ petition and before that, the petitioner’s wife gave the above said complaint to the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner and the wife of the petitioner are misusing the office of the petitioner’s wife as she is working as councillor in the said Municipal Corporation.

¶17

He did not occupy or encroach upon any of the part of the public road as alleged by the writ petitioner for a future requirement. If at all there is a road widening proposal, the 4^th respondent left 5 feet of his own private property land for the said purpose. But it is alleged otherwise stating that, as if there is a public road belonging to the municipality and the same is occupied by the 4^th respondent. There is a conflict of pleadings in factual aspects also since the petitioner alleges on one hand that 8 feet road margin is occupied and on the

¶18

¶19

other hand as per the information obtained by the

¶20

petitioner’s wife, 5 feet road margin is occupied.

¶21

In reply, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that, it is a typographical mistake and the admitted facts are that, the petitioner’s wife gave the above said complaint and the petitioner’s wife also obtained report from the Public Information Officer and those two documents are not denied, on either side.

¶22

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent also submits that, on the complaint received against the 4^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent issued the impugned notice dated 10.11.2021 and the 3^rd respondent will proceed with the said enquiry in accordance with law.

¶23

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent also submits that, by referring to the proceedings of the Information Officer for question No.4, the answer was that, after issuance of such notice, there was no construction of building activity in the said site. 10. In reply, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that, already the building construction is over and the encroachment is also there as

¶24

¶25

alleged in this writ petition, which is specifically denied by the 4^th respondent counsel also.

¶26

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the

¶27

impugned notice dated 10.11.2021 issued by the 3^rd respondent shall be treated as notice only and the 4^th respondent shall be given an opportunity to submit an explanation for it in detail along with the supporting documents within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the 3^rd respondent is directed to proceed with the enquiry by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner and as well as the 4^th respondent and upon verification of the records and the subject site, the appropriate decision shall be taken strictly in accordance with law on it’s own merits. The enquiry shall be completed within a period of three (03) months thereafter.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶30

_______________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶31

13.06.2023 PGT

T. Subramanyam Goud, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Subramanyam Goud, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premaraopogu Sujatha, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Chappidi Somasekhar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dulam Veerendra Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Rahul Builders Vs the State of Ap

Maruthi Constructions Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Maruthi Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh