Disposed

Thuppati Eswaraiah, v. The Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC2 Jul 2012WP/18812/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the Municipal Corporation's inaction on removing road encroachment. Noting notices were already issued, the court held the petition should be disposed of without recording a finding on encroachment absent third-party impleadment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs. The associated connected writ petition was also disposed of.

Thuppati Eswaraiah, Vs The Municipal Corporation — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.18812 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Venkat Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation, Anantapur appearing for the first respondent.

¶5

In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not considering his representation, dated 22.02.2012 for removal of encroachment on 40 feet wide road in front of his house bearing No.6/5/750 in Survey No.141-2B of Anantapur Village and Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that one Sri Thimmappagari Govindappa was the original owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0.30 cents in Survey No.141-2B and he sold the same to one M.Ramanjaneyulu and Parandhamudu through a registered sale deed, dated 07.12.2006 and delivered possession to them. It is stated that they have developed the said land by making constructions by obtaining permission and the house was allotted door No.6/5/750

¶7

and the petitioner has purchased the said house property by a registered sale deed, dated 31.03.2010. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that in front of his house, there is 40 feet wide road and some third parties have encroached on the road and made constructions. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of filing his representation, dated 22.02.2012, no steps have been taken for removal of such encroachments.

¶8

When the matter came up on earlier occasions i.e. on 25.06.2012 and 29.06.2012, it was adjourned to enable the learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation, Anantapur appearing for the first respondent, to obtain instructions. When the matter is taken up today, on instructions, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent that pursuant to the petitioner’s representation, dated 22.02.2012, the first respondent has already taken steps and as there were unauthorized constructions, the first respondent issued notices as contemplated under Section 452 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. It is also submitted that there are some lands belonging to the private parties and as survey is necessary, the Survey and Boundary authorities are already addressed in this regard.

¶9

Though there is an allegation of encroachment, no third party is impleaded in this writ petition, as such, it is not possible to record a finding in this writ petition whether there is any encroachment or not on 40 feet wide road, which is stated to have been there in front of the house of the petitioner. As it is stated that pursuant to the representation of the petitioner, notices were already issued as early as in May, 2012, I am sure that the first respondent will take further steps for removal of encroachments, if any, by following due procedure as contemplated under law.

¶10

Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶11

In view of disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.24101 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶12

______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶13

2^nd JULY, 2012. kvni

Thuppati Eswaraiah, v. The Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thuppati Eswaraiah, v. The 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

Smt. N. Jayashree, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kotla Venkata Ramakrishna Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B.v.S.Varma Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

Ch.Saritha, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Warangal

Mrs. Hasan Uzzaman Begum, D/o. Late Mirza Mohsin Ali Khan, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Gulam Zainulabideen Vs The Deputy Commissioner