Disposed
Kanakam Komuraiah, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Department
Telangana HCWP/22490/2001
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION…
What the court decided
AI extract
SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION…
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 R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.22490 of 2001 ORDER:
In this Writ Petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps for demolition of Mini Rice Mill belonging to him situated in premises bearing No.13-226 (9-9-1 old) situated at Pembarthy Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the above said rice mill, which is installed in premises bearing No.13-226 having purchased from the earlier owner, Sri N.Sanjeevaiah, by a registered sale deed, dated 07.08.1980. It is stated that the said rice mill was constructed by the vendor of the petitioner after duly obtaining permission as required under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondents have visited the site on 22.10.2001 and have taken measurements and marked the portion to be
demolished for the purpose of widening the road. It is the grievance of petitioner that as he was not given any notice, no steps shall be taken by the respondents under law to widen the road.
At the stage of admission, on 30.10.2001, this Court issued interim directions to the respondents not to demolish the premises in question. The said order continued all along.
Though the Writ Petition is of 2001, only the fourth respondent – Vice Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal District filed counter-affidavit and others have not filed any counter-affidavit.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, while denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner has not shown any title deed in support of his claim. Further, while denying that they have visited the site in question as alleged by the petitioner on 22.10.2001, it is stated that the industry should have been installed by leaving minimum width of 40 feet from the road network area.
From the averments mentioned in the
counter-affidavit, it appears, no steps have been taken to acquire any portion of the land of the petitioner. As the respondents have denied their visiting the premises in question and also markings, as alleged by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents not to take any steps either to deprive the rice mill of the petitioner or any portion thereof as otherwise in due process of law. It is made clear that if any portion thereof is required for any public purpose of road widening, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking steps in accordance with law.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st DECEMBER, 2011.
kvni
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be restrained from demolition of his rice mill pending further orders.
Whether the respondents have collected any evidence regarding notice of demolition.
Petitioner
Kakatiya Urban Development Authority
Justice R.Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court