Disposed

M. Salamma v. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority

Telangana HC20 Apr 2012WP/11521/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition questioning the inaction of the respondents in deciding her application for land regularization submitted under the Land Regularisation Scheme. The court disposed of the petition at the admission stage without considering merits, directing the authorities to consider the application and pass appropriate orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to authorities to consider application No.3572 and pass appropriate order within two months.

M. Salamma Vs Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.11521 of 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

M.Salamma … Petitioner and Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep.by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Visakhapatnam and another.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶10

W.P. No.11521 of 2012

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Questioning inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the application No.3572 submitted by the petitioner for regularization of land on 26.03.2008, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶13

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the land nearly 1000 square yards of land in Survey No.44/7P of Bakkannapalem Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶14

With a view to make construction over the said land, the petitioner applied for approval of plan to Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) through Bakkannapalem Gram Panchayat in the year 2008. Thereafter, the officials of the VUDA visited the proposed area for construction and informed the Gram Panchayat stating that it is not possible to approve the plan submitted by the petitioner due to existence of 30 feet road instead of 40 feet road.

¶15

It is further stated that pursuant to the Land Regularisation Scheme, the petitioner applied for regularization of her land vide application No.3572 on 26.03.2008 by complying with all necessary formalities. In response to the said application,

¶16

the Chief Urban Planner, VUDA addressed a letter dated 29.04.2009 directing the petitioner to submit a revised plan duly showing the surrounding layout pattern and location leaving 60 square yards of area for road widening. Accordingly,

¶17

the petitioner agreed for the condition imposed by the respondents leaving 64 square yards of land for road widening and submitted a revised plan and sought for regularization of the land. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents authority to regularize the land and issue necessary orders to that effect. But,

¶18

the petitioner was informed through SMS to attend a special drive to be conducted on 26.09.2011 wherein the petitioner was informed to pay the balance penal amount and accordingly the petitioner paid the same through the demand draft dated 28.09.2011. Though the petitioner complied with all the directions of the respondents authorities and paid total penal amount,

¶19

the authorities neither rejected the application nor passed any orders on the application made by the petitioner in the year 2008. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner made application for regularization of the land in the year 2008 by complying with all the formalities and the directions of the authorities but, the authorities neither passing any orders thereon nor rejecting the same. Hence, the action of the respondents is band and illegal.

¶21

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that as per the averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner earlier made an application seeking for approval of plan. As the authorities did not approve the said plan on the ground that the existing road is 30 feet instead of 40 feet, thereafter,

¶22

the petitioner made application under Land Regularistion Scheme seeking for regularization of the land vide application dated 26.03.2008. Further, it is also evident from the affidavit that the petitioner categorically stated that she complied with all necessary formalities. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders,

¶23

in accordance with law.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶25

The main grievance of the petitioner is that though she made application on 26.03.2008 for regularization of the land by complying with all the conditions and formalities, the respondents did not pass any orders thereon. Eventually, both the learned counsel submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders,

¶26

in accordance with law.

¶27

In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, directing the respondents to consider the application No.3572 stated to have been made on 26.03.2008 by the petitioner seeking for regularization of the petition schedule land and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶30

Date: 20.04.2012

¶31

Note: Issue C.C. in a week. B/o. LSK

M. Salamma v. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Salamma v. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority

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

M/s Bhavani Electrical and Engineering Works, Vs Karimnagar Municipal Corporation

Boggarapu Venkata Satyanarayana, Vs Proddatur Municipality

K.Hemanth Kumar Vs Sri Neela Kanta Reddy

B. Narayanamma Vs The Commissioner

Y. Satyawati Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

G v S Ramakrishna Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh