Dismissed

S Seetha Ratnam Mankiyamba v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Apr 2012WP/11066/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of seven writ petitions challenging the respondent authorities' attempt to demolish petitioner houses for road widening. The court directed the respondents to follow due process of law if the properties were required, noting the petitioners' complaint of no notice and no compensation.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to follow due process of law in the event petitioners' properties are required for road widening.

S Seetha Ratnam Mankiyamba Vs The Government of Andhra… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH **WRIT PETITION No.11059 of 2012 WRIT PETITION No. 11060 of 2012 WRIT PETITION No.11061 of 2012 WRIT PETITION No.11062 of 2012 WRIT PETITION No.11063 of 2012 WRIT PETITION No.11064 of 2012 WRIT PETITION No.11065 of 2012 and WRIT PETITION No.11066 of 2012 Date: April 18, 2012 WRIT PETITION No.11059 of 2012: Between: Nunna Pushpavathi … Petitioner And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents * * *** **WRIT PETITION No. 11060 of 2012: Between: Vanjarapu Rama Vara Laxmi … Petitioner And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents * * *** **WRIT PETITION No.11061 of 2012: Between: Vanka Naga Vara Laxmi … Petitioner And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents * * *** WRIT PETITION No.11062 of 2012:

¶2

Between: Surla Vara Laxmi … Petitioner
And
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents
*****
WRIT PETITION No.11063 of 2012 :
Between:
Nunna Venkata Subramanyam … Petitioner
And
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents
*****
WRIT PETITION No.11064 of 2012 :
Between:
Gamidi Veera Venkata Satyavathi … Petitioner
And
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents
*****
WRIT PETITION No.11065 of 2012 :
Between:
S. Rama Mani … Petitioner
And
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents
*****
WRIT PETITION No.11066 of 2012 :
Between:
S. Seetha Ratnam Mankiyamba … Petitioner

¶3

And

¶4

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents

¶5

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.11059 of 2012 WRIT PETITION No. 11060 of 2012 WRIT PETITION No.11061 of 2012 WRIT PETITION No.11062 of 2012 WRIT PETITION No.11063 of 2012 WRIT PETITION No.11064 of 2012 WRIT PETITION No.11065 of 2012 and

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.11066 of 2012

¶9

COMMON ORDER:

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶11

2. Since the relief sought for in all the writ petitions is similar, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

¶12

3. The case of the petitioners is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject houses. The respondent authorities, without following due process of law, are taking steps to demolish their houses for the purpose of road widening.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent authorities without issuing any notice to the petitioners simply asked the petitioners to participate in the meeting held on 03.4.2012 in which the petitioners have participated and expressed their inability to cooperate with the municipal authorities on the ground that they were not paid any compensation in respect of the subject properties.

¶14

5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the municipal Corporation asked various persons of the subject area to participate in the meeting held on 03.4.2012 whose properties are affected in the process of road widening, and several persons have participated in the meeting and expressed their willingness to handover their properties to the municipal Corporation, whereas the petitioners did not cooperate for the same. .

¶15

6. In the circumstances, all the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to follow due process of law in the event of petitioners’ properties are required for the purpose of road widening. No order as to costs.

¶16

G. CHANDRAIAH, J.

¶17

Date: April 18, 2012. Note:

¶18

Issue CC in three days. //B.O.// BSB

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶20

¶21

and WRIT PETITION No.11066 of 2012

¶22

Date: April 18, 2012

¶23

BSB

S Seetha Ratnam Mankiyamba v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Seetha Ratnam Mankiyamba v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Syamsundar Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

G Rajender Prasad, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

M. Ome Prakash Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

D. Seshanna Vs The Commissioner

Sri Rayala Raghu Vs The Greatr Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Galla Janakiram, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh