Dismissed

M/S.Kowtha Steel Products Secbad v. the Eo. Gram Panchayat Vijayawada

Telangana HC19 Feb 2008WP/14354/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a notice for removal of a cycle stand alleged to encroach on a public road. Court held that the claim of title by adverse possession must be tried in a civil court. A person in possession of public road is entitled only to compensation under Section 98(2), not to object removal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

M/S.Kowtha Steel Products Secbad Vs the Eo. Gram Panchayat Vijayawada — Telangana HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14354 of 2000

¶5

Between:

¶6

Kowtha Steel Products (Props. Indian Commerce & Industries Co.Ltd.,), rep. by its Director, K.L.Manohar

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District

¶10

.....RESPONDENT

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.PRABHAKAR RAO

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.14354 of 2000

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This writ petition is filed by M/s. Kowtha Steel Products questioning the notice dated 26.07.2000 issued to Swadharma Swarajya Sangham, C/o M/s. Kowtha Steel Products, Ramavarappadu, under Sections 94, 98 and 137 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act), for removal of the encroachment made on the public road. 2. The notice impugned states that inasmuch as the noticee encroached on to the main road in P.S.R.Colony by raising a shed with G1 sheets for the purpose of cycle stand and it is causing public nuisance and hence has to be removed and if the said encroachment is not removed within seven days (of service of notice), fine of Rs.500/- would be recovered from it.

¶19

3. The case of the petitioner is that it, after obtaining lease of the factory premises from ‘Swadharma Swarajya Sangham’, is running a steel foundry and the cycle stand, for removal of which the notice impugned was issued, was constructed about 40 years prior to the filing of the writ petition and as it did not encroach on to the main road and has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land for more than 50 years, and as the respondent did not issue any show cause notice before issuing the notice impugned, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶20

4. Though the writ petition is of the year 2000, no counter

¶21

affidavit is filed by the respondent.

¶22

5. No documents are produced by the petitioner to show its possession over the land in dispute for over four decades as claimed by it. If the petitioner feels that the ‘road’ in respect of which the notice impugned is issued is not a ‘public road’ and is its property, it has to establish that fact either by producing the title deeds or by filing a suit for declaration of title. From a reading of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is clear that petitioner probably is claiming title to the area covered by the cycle stand by adverse possession but not through any document. Only a civil Court is competent to decide the question of adverse possession and question of adverse possession cannot be decided by a writ Court.

¶23

6. Even assuming that the petitioner has been in possession of the property from 50 years as claimed by it, and if it is proved that the area in which the cycle stand is constructed is a part of the public road, then also petitioner is bound by the notice issued, because as per Section 98(2) of the Act it is only entitled to claim compensation, but cannot object to the removal of the encroachment.

¶24

7. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

19.02.2008

Cvrk

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies

M/S.Kowtha Steel Products Secbad v. the Eo. Gram Panchayat Vijayawada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Kowtha Steel Products Secbad v. the Eo. Gram Panchayat Vijayawada

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

A.Atmananda Rddy, Vs State of A.P.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Vs Govt of A.P.

M/s Sri Suryalakshmi Industries, Vs a.P.Industrial Infrastructures Corporation

Rajesh Kumar, Vs The Commissioner

M/s. Bata India Limited, Vs The M.C.H.

Vasam Kotayya Vs S.Rayavaram Gram Panchayat