Banka Srinivas Kamal Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

BANKA SRINIVAS KAMAL, S/o Banka Surya Narayana Aged about 45 years, R/o 24-89-20, Gonthinavanipalem, Kanithi Road, NearSFS School, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530026

¶10

Satyala Venkata Kanaka Padmaja, W/o Satyala Nanaji, Aged about 50 years, R/o F4, Ramya Prasad Castle, Lane No. 8, Viman Nagar West, Opp Airport, Kakani Nagar, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530009

¶11

Balaraju Bhujanga Pranaya,, W/o Lavidi Vishya Sagar aged about 34 years, R/o D.No 24-90-4/1, Gothinavanipalem, Kanithi Road, Near SFS School, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530026.

¶12

Karri Ravi Teja,, S/o Karri Nageswara Rao, Aged about 40 years, R/o D.No. 26-26-21, Chinagentyada, NearGowtham Buddha Grandalayam, Chinnagantyada, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530026

¶13

Banka Appa Rao,, S/o Late Sri. Banka Sanyasi, Aged about 71 years, R/o D.No 24-89-21/B, Gonthuvanipalem, Kanithi Road, Near SFS School, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530026

¶14

Bhogavilli Sannayamma, w/o Bhogavilli Kondala Rao, Aaged about - years, R/o 24-89-20/1, Kanithi Road, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530026

¶15

Banka Kanna Rao, S/o Late Sri Banka Kannayya, Aged about 70 years, R/o D.No. 24-89-19, Prasanthi Nagar, Revenue Ward - 61, Kanithi Road, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530026

¶16

Peketi Jagannadha Rao,, S/o Late Sri. Peketi Narayana Rao Aged 65 years, R/O D.No 24-89-18/1, Kanithi Road, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530026

¶17

2

¶18

Bhavesh Veiji Patel,, S/o Veiji Jetha Patel Aged about 50 years, R/o D. No 24-89-16/3, Prasanthi Nagar, Revenue Ward - 61, Kanithi Road, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530026

¶19

Tanish Halpani,, S/o Bharath Halpani, Aged about 24 years, R/o D.No 2489-17, Kanithi Road, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530026

¶20

Banka Padma, w/o Banka Acharao, Aged about 52 years, R/o D.No. 2489-16, Prasanthi Nagar, Revenue Ward - 61, Kanithi Road, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh - 530026

¶21

...Petitioners

¶22

AND

¶23

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Thulluru Mandal, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522238.

¶24

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Asilimetta Junction, Ram Nagar, Visakhapatnam - 530002.

¶25

The Zonal Commissioner, GVMC Zonal Office - 6, Gajuwaka, D.No. 26-120, 100 feet Road, Opp. Municipal Office, Chinnagantyada, Sri Nagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh - 530026

¶26

...Respondents

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners: T S B V RAMA REDDY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶29

3

¶30

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

¶31

Heard Sri T.S.B.V. Rama Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations.

¶32

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following relief:

¶33

“….. to issue appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS or any other writ by declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in marking the properties of the Petitioners in their absence for the purpose of road widening and undertaking road widening affecting the private properties of the Petitioners without issuing prior notice and in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective properties without following the procedure contemplated under law as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice besides being violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and contrary to provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and A.P. Building Rules, 2017 and consequently direct the respondent authorities more particularly Respondents 2 and 3 to not to interfere with the Petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective properties without following the procedure contemplated under law and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶34

Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Assistant City Planner, Gajuwaka Zone, GVMC, Visakhapatnam. Copy of the Written Instruction is also furnished to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners. This Written Instruction is taken on record.

¶35

Relevant portion of the Written Instructions is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶36

3) It is submitted that the respondent Corporation had tentatively marked 70 feet only for the limited purpose of assessing the extent of properties likely to be affected in the event of road widening. However, it is clarified that the

¶37

4

¶38

existing 66-feet road is as per FMB and onground position and Corporation is presently undertaking road development works strictly within the existing 66-feet road only.

¶39

4) It is further submitted that, in the event the respondent Corporation proposes to widen the road to 70 feet, it shall strictly follow the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms. No.119 dated 27.03.2017, as well as the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

¶40

The above extract would indicate that the marking of 70 feet is done only for a limited purpose of assessing the extent of properties likely to be affected in the event of road widening. The above extract would also indicate that the Respondent Authorities have clarified that the existing road is a 66 feet road as per the FMB and on ground position, and that the Corporation is presently undertaking road development works strictly within the existing 66 feet road only. The above extract would also indicate that the Respondent Corporation will follow the due process of law, if the 66 feet road is required to be further widened to 70 feet.

¶41

Having so recorded, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Respondent Authorities to follow the due process of law in terms of Para No.4 of the above extract.

¶42