The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a demolition notice for road widening. It directed the respondents to follow due process of law and pay compensation before disturbing the petitioner's structures.
Directed the respondents to follow due process of law for considering the petitioner's case and for paying compensation.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION No.11280 of 2012
Date: April 19, 2012
Between:
Boggarapu Venkata Satyanarayana … Petitioner
And
1. Proddatur Municipality, Proddatur, YSR District, rep. by its Commissioner.
2. The Special Officer, Proddatur Municipality, Proddatur, YSR District. … Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION No.11280 of 2012
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the notice bearing Rc.No.2066/2010-G2, dated 09.4.2012 of the first respondent whereby and whereunder the structures of the petitioner bearing D.No.23/363 in Ward No.23, Muslimpuram Street, Proddatur Municipality, YSR District are sought to be demolished without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the structures of the petitioner without initiating the Land Acquisition proceedings.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and
possessor of the petition schedule property. The respondent authorities have issued the impugned notice dated 09.4.2012 requesting the petitioner to remove the affected area of his structures in the process of road widening. The first respondent, without initiating Land Acquisition proceedings before demolishing his structures, has issued the impugned notice. Hence, the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice issued by the first respondent is bad and illegal for the reason that if the petitioner’s land is taken to the extent mentioned in the impugned notice i.e., 11’ + 9’.6” = 10’.3” for the purpose of road widening out of 11’.6” x 9’, the left over area will be very negligible and it is not useful for the petitioner in any manner. Therefore, unless the petitioner is paid compensation as per law, the respondents cannot disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality would submit that the respondent authorities have taken decision pursuant to the Council Resolution No.99 dated 13.01.2011, for road widening to 40 feet from the existing width. In that process, all the persons including the petitioner were given similar notices and therefore the action of the respondents is in accordance with law.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the parties, the point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition?
7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the impugned notice is issued requiring the petitioner to hand over the affected portion of site for the purpose of road widening. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having permanent structures in an extent of 11’.6” x 9’ out of which the respondents require 10’.3”.
The remaining area, which is negligible, is not useful for the petitioner, thereby the petitioner is deprived of his livelihood and the compensation provided under G.O.Ms. No.281, dated 01.4.2008, referred to in the impugned notice is of no use for the petitioner.
8. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow due process of law for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner and for paying compensation. No order as to costs.
____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J
Date: April 19, 2012.
Note: Issue C.C. in two days. //B.O.// BSB
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION No.11280 of 2012
Date: April 19, 2012
BSB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief against demolition notice issued without Land Acquisition proceedings?
Whether the petitioner must be paid compensation before disturbance of peaceful possession for road widening?
Boggarapu Venkata Satyanarayana
Proddatur Municipality
The Special Officer, Proddatur Municipality
G. CHANDRAIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
