Partly allowed

K. Guravaiah v. The Kurnool Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC28 Jul 2011WP/32449/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed Writ Petition No. 32449 of 2010 as infructuous following a judgment disposing of the underlying challenge. Writ Petition No. 32166 of 2010, concerning inadequate compensation for acquired land in road widening, was disposed of with liberty to file a fresh representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

W.P. No. 32449/2010 dismissed as infructuous; W.P. No. 32166/2010 disposed of with liberty to file a representation for reconsideration of compensation within four weeks.

K. Guravaiah Vs The Kurnool Municipal Corporation — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.32449 of 2010 and 32166 of 2010

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Since the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same and the relief sought for in both the Writ Petitions is in respect of the same property, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order. W.P.No. 32449 of 2010

¶5

The Writ Petition No. 32449 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing notice dated 8.11.2010 with mala fide intention to demolish the 2^nd floor under a wrong impression that a fresh construction is going on in the 2^nd floor without paying any compensation to the 2^nd floor portion of demolished structures in road widening as illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the 2^nd floor in the premises of D.No. 46/87/57 situated at Woodland Lodge, Kurnool town belonging to the petitioner.

¶6

Along with Writ Petition, the writ petitioner also filed W.P.M.P.No. 41238 of 2010 seeking a direction to the respondents not to demolish the 2^nd floor in the premises of D.No. 46/87-57, Woodlands, Budhwarpet, Kurnool, pending disposal of Writ Petition. This Court while ordering Rule Nisi in the Writ Petition on 22.10.2010, directed the respondents not to demolish the 2^nd floor of the premises in question while giving

¶7

liberty to demolish any other unauthorized construction over and above the 2^nd floor.

¶8

W.P.No. 32166 of 2010

¶9

The petitioner also filed Writ Petition No. 32166 of 2010 seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation to the land acquired in the proposed master plan road widening and only paying the compensation for the structures at old rates as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to re-assess value of the structures as per the then existing rates as on the date of demolition in the premises of D.No. 46/87-57,Woodlands, Budhwarpet, Kurnool and to pay the same to the petitioner.

¶10

This Court ordered Rule Nisi in Writ Petition No. 32166 of 2010 on 18.1.2011 and ordered notice in W.P.M.P.No. 40884 of 2010 filed in Writ Petition No. 32166 of 2010.

¶11

The respondent-Corporation filed W.V.M.P.No. 2654 of 2011 seeking to vacate the interim order passed in W.P.M.P.No. 41238 of 2010 dated 22.12.2010.

¶12

The learned Standing Counsel for RespondentCorporation submits that subsequent to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No. 41238 of 2010, the respondent-Corporation issued notice dated 26.7.2011 under Section 636 of G.H.M.C. Act. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 21262 of 2011. By an order dated 28.7.2011, this Court noticing the fact that the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 21262 of 2011 challenging the notice dated 8.11.2010 issued by the respondent-Corporation under Section 451 of GHMC Act, this Court granted interim direction not

¶13

to demolish the 2^nd floor of the premises bearing D.No. 46/87-56 situated at Woodlands Lodge, Budhwarpet, Kurnool with a liberty to demolish any other unauthorised structure including the floors over and above the 2^nd floor. Pursuant to the said interim order, the respondent authorities issued notice dated 26.7.2011 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorised structures including the floors over and above the 2^nd floor of the premises in question within 24 hours from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the unauthorised construction including the floors over and above the 2^nd floor would be removed/demolished by the Corporation as per the provisions of Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

¶14

In the said Writ Petition, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that no structures were there in the premises over and above the 2^nd floor, except the slab for 3^rd and 4^th floors upon which a provision for lift and an over head tank is erected as the petitioner is running a hotel in the premises. Further, contention is that the erection of the said water tank is in accordance with law and therefore the impugned notice for removal of the alleged unauthorised structures is unwarranted.

¶15

On the ground that in response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 5.8.2011, but the same was not considered and no opportunity was given and without considering the same, the impugned notice was issued.

¶16

Having regard to the submissions made, this Court by an order dated 28.7.2011 disposed of the Writ Petition No. 21262 of 2011 treating the impugned notice as a show cause notice, the respondents were directed to consider the explanation dated

¶17

5.8.2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Until such time, there shall not be any demolition of the structures. Thereafter, in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the respondent-Corporation issued the proceedings vide Rc No.8759/2010/G1, dated 27.8.2011 rejecting the representation dated 5.8.2011 and also another representation dated 25.8.2011 by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Writ Petition No. 32449 of 2010 has become infructuous.

¶18

In view of the above submissions, the Writ Petition No. 32449 of 2010 has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as infructuous.

¶19

The case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 32166 of 2010 is that in the process of the road widening the property of the petitioner was affected and in respect of the affected portion of the property, compensation was paid and it was not properly assessed.

¶20

In view of the subsequent developments after institution of Writ Petition No. 32166 of 2010 as discussed in Writ Petition No. 32449 of 2010, the Writ Petition No. 32166 of 2010 is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent-Corporation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent-Corporation may consider the same in accordance with law and inform the action taken on the representation to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of representation from the petitioner.

¶21

In the result Writ Petition No. 32449 of 2010 is dismissed

¶22

as infructuous and the Writ Petition No. 32166 of 2010 is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

_______________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J.

¶24

27^th June, 2012 CHV

K. Guravaiah v. The Kurnool Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Guravaiah v. The Kurnool Municipal Corporation

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

Nammi Venkata Rao (Hindu) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kurra Renukamma Vs Somanthala Chinna Seshu Reddy

G.G.Reddy Vs Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

The District Malaria Officer, Vs K. Yadagiri

Mandadi Suseela Vs Madras Fertilizers Limited

D.v.Reddy Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C.