The High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by the Tirupati Municipal Corporation against an order directing it not to construct a ward secretariat on land the petitioner claimed was a public park.
Petitioners directed to restore and develop the land as a public park. Appeal dismissed without costs.
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 :: AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO: 18 OF 2024
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order in W.P.No.24011/2022 dated 28-07-2023 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order in W.P.No.24011/2022dated28-07-2023 of the Learned Single of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhraPradeshatAmaravati.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of (141) days in filing the above W.A assailing the orders in W.P.No.24011/2022, dated 28-07-2023passed the Learned Single of this Hon'ble High Court of Andrha Pradesh at Amaravati otherwise the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and hardship.
Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI
Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: SRI. N. BHARAT BABU
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR MUNICIPALITY
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
8e
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No. 18 of 2024
Between:
Tirupati Municipal Corporation Rep by its Commissioner, Tilak Road, Tirupati, Tirupati District and another.
...Appellants
Versus
Dr. Danda Narasimhulu Ph.D, S/o Venkata Swamy, Aged about 80 years, R/o D.No. 1-5-582, Balaji Colony, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati District & four others.
...Respondents
Coimsel for the Appellants : Sri Subbarao Korrapati Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 : Sri N. Bharat Babu, rep. by Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu
Counsel for the 4^1^ Respondent : Government Pleader for
Municipal Administration
Counsel for the 5tti Respondent : Government Pleader for Revenue
2
HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No. 18 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Dt: 22.02.2024
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Ptao)
Heard Sri Subbarao Korrapati, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri N. Bharat Babu, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the 4^^ respondent and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 5^^ respondent.
3
HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No, 18 of 2024
on the ground that the said open space was actually an area earmarked as park according to the layout and no gatescouldbe permitted to be constructed in and around that area.
- The appeUant-corporation filed its counter affidavitstating that the vacant land, which is the subject matter ofthewrit petition, is only an open space and is not earmarkedforapark.It was further contended that this vacant site would beconvenient for the general public if a ward sachivalayam is constructedthere for ward Nos.23 and 29. It is further contended thatSection380 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (herein JT 1999 (5) SC 42
4
HCJ&RRR,J W.A.No.l8of2024
referred to as ‘the Act’), which is apphcable to the Tirupati Municipal Corporation, empowered the Commissioner to acquire any land required for any purpose including the constructionof buildings of pubhc utility.
- A Learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearingboth sides, was pleased to allow the writ petition with a direction to the appellant-corporation and other respondents in the writ petition not to construct a ward sachivalayam or any community hail by convertiQg the place earmarked for park in the land situated in between the two houses mentioned above. There was also a further direction to the respondents to restore and develop the pubhc park in the said land.
- Aggrieved by the said order, the appeUants have movedthe present writ appeal.
5
HCJ&RRR,J W.A.No.l8of2024
purposes such as construction of building for public purpose and there was no illegahty in the construction of suchbuildings.
“380. (1) The Commissioner may, subject to the provisions of sections 146, 147 and 148:—
(a) acquire any land required for the pmpose of opening, widening, extending, diverting or otherwise improving any public street, bridge, or subway or of making any new public street, bridge or subway, and the buildings, if any, standing upon such land;
(b) acquire in addition to the said land and the buildings, if any, standing thereupon, all such land with the buildings, if any, standing thereupon as it shall deem expedient for the Corporation to acquire outside of the regular line or of the mtended regular line of such street;
(c) lease, sell or otherwise dispose of any land or building pmchased imder clause (b).”
6
HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No. 18 of 2024
“374. (1) The Commissioner shall from time to time cause all public streets vested in the Corporation to be levelled, metalled or paved, channelled, altered and repaired, as occasion shall require; he may also from time to time widen, extend or otherwise improve any such street or cause the soil thereof to he raised, lowered or altered and may place and keep in repair fences and posts for the safety of pedestrians:
Provided that no widening, exl.ension or other improvement of a public street, the aggregate cost of which will exceed rupees five thousand or such higher amount as the Corporation may from time to time fix, shall be undertaken by the Commissioner unless or untU such undertaking has been authorised by the Corporation. (2) With the sanction of the Corporation the Commissioner may permanently close the whole or any part of a public street vested m the Corporation:
Provided that such sanction of the Corporation shall not be given imless, one month at least before the meeting at which the matter is decided, a notice signed by the Commissioner has been put in the street or part of a street which itis proposed to close, informing the residents of the said proposal, nor imtll the objections to the said proposal, if any, made in writing at any time before the day of the said meeting, ha-ve been received a.nd considered by the Corporation.
374-A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall be competent for the Government or any other agency authorised by them in this
7
HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No. 18 of 2024
\ \
behalf to exercise the powers of the Corporation and the Commissioner vested in them by or under this Act for the purpose of levelling, metalling, paving, charm elhng, widening or otherwise to carry out any repair to the public streets vested in the Corporation and also to lay new roads at their own expense in pubhc interest.
(2) For the purpose of enabUng the Government or the agency authorised by them to rmdertake repairs under subsection (1), the pubhc streets shall vest in the Government temporarily from a date to be notified by them in this behalf and thereupon it shall be competent for the Government to take over possession of the pubhc streets from the said date. The pubhc streets or any new roads laid under subsection (1) shall continue to vest in the Government imth the notification is revoked and thereafter stand transferred to the Corporation. (3) It shall be the duty of the Corporation and the Commissioner to carry out any directions issued by the Government for the purpose of sub-sections (1) and (2).
- There is no claim by the Municipal Corporation thatsucha procedure has been followed. Therefore, the provisionsofSection 380 of the Act, would not apply. In that view of the matter, the
8
HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No. 18 of 2024
attempt of the corporation to construct a ward sachlvalayam
without such permissions being obtained is clearly impermissible.
- Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel appearingfor respondents 1 to 3 would also contend that the disputed piece of land is presently a dead end road. However, there is every possibihty that the road may be extended and in such event, construction of the ward sachivalayam would result in unnecessary blockage of the road.
- Apart from the above, this Court does not find anylacunain the ratio of the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,shall
stand closed.
/
Sd/-V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY\REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// c. SECTION OFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT
0ATED:22/O2/2O24
ORDER
WA.No.18of 2024
DISMISSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the land in question was earmarked for a public park or was a dead-end road.
Whether Section 380 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, empowers the Commissioner to construct a ward sachivalayam on such land without complying with procedural requirements.
Whether the Single Judge's order directing restoration of the public park area was correct.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Tirupati Municipal Corporation
Dr. Danda Narasimhulu Ph.D
Kosuri Damodara Naidu
G.Prathapa Simha
State of Andhra Pradesh
District Collector, Tirupati
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
