The petitioner, a retired pharmacist, filed a writ petition challenging the alleged illegal conversion of hospital land for a stadium. The court found the petition was based on mere apprehension without record of allotment, held the petitioner lacked locus standi, and dismissed it.
The Writ Petition was dismissed with 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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.15387 OF 1999
DATED:7.3.2006
Between: N. Chandrayudu …Petitioner And The District Collector, Anantapur District Anantapur and others …Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.15387 OF 1999
ORDER:
The petitioner is a retired Pharmacist. He filed the Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in converting the land in T.S.No.2677-2 and T.S.No.2143/1 of Anantapur Municipality allegedly belong to the District Hospital, Anantapur Municipality (now, Corporation) for the purpose of developing indoor stadium and park, as illegal and arbitrary.
It is the case of the petitioner that in 1965 an extent of Acs.10.00 in the two survey numbers was acquired from London Christian Machinery Society for the purpose of
construction of District Hospital. Due to paucity of funds hospital and a few quarters were constructed leaving open a considerable extent of vacant land. An extent of Acs.0.06 was allotted to A.P. Electricity Board for construction of sub-station in the year 1992. In the year 1998 the Anantapur Municipality requested the District Collector to allot an extent of about Acs.9.00 for development of park and playground. However, when the proposals were sent to A.P.Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, fourth respondent, the request for allotment of land was rejected. In spite of the same, in second week of July, 1999 Municipal Chairman laid foundation for constructing indoor stadium. The petitioner contends that there is a need for utilizing the land for construction of staff quarters and expanding hospital quarters. According to the petitioner, if the land is allotted to Municipality, it would defeat the purpose for which the land was acquired.
A counter affidavit is filed by the Commissioner of Anantapur Municipality. In paragraph 3 of the counter it is stated as under.
With reference to Paras 2 to 8 it is submitted that there is no record to show that the land in TS No.2143-1 & TS No.2677-2 belonging to the Hospital is allotted to the Municipality for construction of a stadium. It is submitted that the land acquired by District Head Quarters Hospital authorities for construction of staff quarters and other extension had been idle for as long time without utilization for the purpose it was intended. The land has also been left unprotected and has been encroached upon time and again by hutdwellers and land-grabbers. The said encroachments were periodically removed by revenue and municipal authorities with the help of Police Department. Recently, with a view to protecting the valuable land from further encroachments, the Municipality has fenced the land by evicting the encroachments. The Municipality has also addressed the District Collector, Anantapur for allotment of the suit land to the Municipality for development of a stadium for public utility purpose. Since the hospital authorities have failed to utilize the same even after a long time has elapsed since acquisition.
In the affidavit accompanying the Writ Petition, the petitioner has not given details of proceedings under which the land was allotted to Municipality. Be that as it is, though the counter-affidavit is filed on 13.10.1999 by the Municipality, no reply affidavit is filed. This only shows that the land was never allotted to Municipality and the Writ Petition is filed on mere apprehension. Further, the petitioner herein, who is Pharmacist, cannot be said to have any locus standi. The land of the Government is utilized for another public purpose when it was not required for public purpose for which it was acquired.
The Writ Petition is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
(V.V.S.RAO, J) 7.3.2006
bnr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, a retired pharmacist, has locus standi to challenge the utilization of government land.
Whether the Writ Petition filed on mere apprehension without record of allotment is maintainable.
N. Chandrayudu
District Collector, Anantapur District and others
V.V.S.RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
