Allowed

Yadava Rao, v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC5 Dec 2011WP/6263/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court was asked to examine the validity of a notice issued by a Municipality for the removal of temporary sheds alleging encroachment on a master plan road. The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the notice for lack of prior opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice was directed to be treated as a show cause notice; six weeks were granted to the petitioner to file objections.

Yadava Rao, Vs The Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6263 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed questioning the notice, dated 16.03.2009, issued in proceedings No.G1/121/2009 by respondent No.1-Municipality.

¶5

In the aforesaid notice, it is alleged that the petitioner has encroached the 60 feet master plan road by erecting temporary sheds on the side of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation bus stand.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the tenant of the premises in question and at the instance of respondent No.2, the impugned notice is issued directing removal of temporary structures erected in the master-plan road. It is his grievance that though there is no encroachment, without giving any opportunity, the impugned notice is issued for removal straightaway.

¶7

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that the owner of the premises in question has already given consent for showing 60 feet road in the master plan as such, the petitioner is not having any right to continue therein. Whether the properties, which are affected by the masterplan, are notified by paying compensation or not is a matter for enquiry by the respondents. When it is alleged that the impugned notice is issued to the petitioner only at the instance of respondent No.2, who is the purchaser of the property, so as to evict him under the guise of encroachment, the respondents ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner before issuing the impugned notice for removal of the structures. From a perusal of the impugned notice also, there is no indication of giving any prior

¶8

opportunity to the petitioner. When the alleged encroachment is disputed, the finding has to be recorded thereon by conducting summary enquiry.

¶9

For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to treat the impugned notice as show cause notice for removal of structures. The petitioner is permitted to file his explanation/objections to the proposed removal within a period of six (6) weeks from today. Respondent No.1 shall examine the objections to be filed by the petitioner and take further steps in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is made clear that if no explanation is filed within the time frame referred to above, it is open to respondent No.1 to proceed further and pass appropriate orders. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶10

R.SUBHASH REDDY,J

¶11

Dt:05.12.2011. kdl

Yadava Rao, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadava Rao, v. The Commissioner

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

Mother Theresa Educational society, Regd.No.22/1986 Vs Government of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary, School

Banjara Educational Society, Vs Osmania University, Rep. by its Registrar

V. Nikhila, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Chennuboina Chittibabu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Abbisetti Sattiraju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary

P.Ramulu Vs The Commissioner, Municipal Council