Allowed

Sacchi Nagamani v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Feb 2024WP/3663/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the destruction of a park for road laying under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC. The court recorded that authorities intended no road construction based on upcoming submissions. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage without costs, directing respondents to ensure no road is laid.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage, directing respondents to see that no road be laid in the subject open space/park.

Sacchi Nagamani Vs the State of Ap — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3663 OF 2024

¶7

Between;

¶8

Sacchi Nagamani, W/o Jagannadham Hindu aged about 48 years, Occu; House Wife R/o Plot No 12, Ramakrishna Nagar, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram Town, Vizianagaram Dist.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Municipal Admn. & Urban Development Authority At Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P.

¶12

The District Collector, Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram.

¶13

The Vizianagaram Municipal Corporation, Rep. by^{itsCommissioner} Vizianagaram District.

¶14

The Executive Engineer, Vizianagaram Municipal Corporation, Vizianagaram. 5. A Hah Prasad, S/o not known to the petitioner, Hindu aged about 56 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o H. No. 1-84, Saraivalasa Village,^{MakkuvaMandal} Vizianagaram District -535547.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in destroying the park situated in Ramakrishna Nagar Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram Town by laying a road in it as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to lay any road in the said park and protect the park by considering the representation of the petitioner dt.07.02.2024 in the interest of Justice.

¶17

lA NO; 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to lay road in park situated in Ramakrishna Nagar Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram Town by considering the representation of the petitioner dt.07.02.2024 in the interest of Justice pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP MUNICIPAL^{ADMINISTRATION&} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶21

A Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: SRI M.MANOHAR REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: —

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.3663 of 2024

¶27

Sacchi Nagamani, W/o Jagannadham, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Plot No. 12, Ramakrishna Nagar, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram Town, Vizianagaram District.

¶28

... Petitioner

¶29

Versus

¶30

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Admn. & Urban Development Authority at Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. and four others.

¶31

... Respondents

¶32

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Bonu Rama Shankar Rao Counsel for respondents : GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development; GP for Revenue and Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^of

¶35

India, is filed seeking the following relief:

¶36

"... to issue an appropriateWrit, Order or Direction more pairticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in destroying^the park situated in Ramakrishna Nagar Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram Town by laying a road in it as illegal, arbitrary, violation of articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of

Page 2 of 4

SRS,J

W.P.No.3663 of 2024

India and violation of principles of natural justice^and consequently direct the respondents not to lay any^roadin the said park and protect the park by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 07.02.2024 in^the interest of Justice and pass such other Order or Orders^...”

¶41

Heard Sri Bonu Rama Shankar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned standing^counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.5, contractor was awarded contract work to lay road through the park situated in Ramakrishna Nagar, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram Town (herein after referred to as the ‘subject park’). He submits that despite the petitioner’s representation dated 07.02.2024 made before respondent No.3, contractor came to the subject park with bulldozer, on 08.02.2024 and informed that the work will commence on 09.02.2024.

¶43

Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, on instructions of Commissioner, Vizianagaram Municipal Corporation would submit that Executive Engineer, Vizianagaram Municipal Corporation addressed letter dated

¶44

Page 3 of 4

¶45

SRS, J W.P.No.3663 of 2024

¶46

¶47

11.01.2024 proposing to lay road through the subject park. However, learned Commissioner, Vizianagaram Municipal Corporation replied to the Executive Engineer that^the site falls under the layout open space and as per the Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-division) Rules, 2017 vide G.O.Ms.No.275 M.A. & U.D., dated 18.07.2017, layout open space cannot be utilized for any purpose other than parks, playground, gardens, nursery, recreational open space, etc. He would also submit that no work is carried out and the compound wall of the layout open space will not be^removed.In fact compound wall was constructed to prevent encroachments.

¶48

Recording the submissions of learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 that the authorities are not^intendingto lay road across the subject open space, this writ petition is disposed of at admission stage, directing the respondents^to see that no road will be laid in the subject open space/park. No costs.

¶49

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shall stand dismissed.

¶50

Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR assistantI^egistrar SE^fc>>LQHf^GER

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

¶53

Guntur District. Cnllf^ctor Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram.

¶54

1. The District 3 The Commissioner v’izianagamm Municipal Corporation, Vizianagaram Vizianagaram District-535547. rr^oi ir'i

¶55

? ?:;:§gsrGPrunSS DLe,opn,en., High Court 8 , gnTcC^'^Srl M^a°chl’r Reddy. SC tor Murticipa, Corporation.^[OPUd 9. Three CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.3663 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE ADMISSION STAGE WITHOUT COSTS

Sacchi Nagamani v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sacchi Nagamani v. the State of Ap

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

Challa Venkata Phani Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.S.A. Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Ap

Gopisetti Mallikarjuna Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vasimalla Srinivasa Rao at Srinu Vs the State of Ap

Mungara Bhagavan Sankara Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Rr Edifice Private Limited Vs Sri.Shashibhushan Kumar