Allowed

Bramha Devi Mastanamma v. District Collector

Telangana HC18 Sept 2012WP/22660/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.A. No.1458 of 2011, a two-Judge Bench disposed of the appeal and related writ petitions. The Court held that since a Division Bench had earlier directed the removal of encroachments in the same road layout in 2004, and subsequent actions by the Collector executed those directions within two weeks, there was no impinging orderment. The Court discounted the impleadment application and disposed

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of. The implead application W.P.M.P. No.2494 of 2012 and applications seeking interim relief stood dismissed.

Bramha Devi Mastanamma Vs District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT APPEAL NO.1458 OF 2011 & WRIT PETITION NOs.23115 AND 22660 OF 2012

¶3

DATED:18.9.2012

¶4

W.A. No.1458 of 2011 Between: I.V. Satish Kumar and others … Appellants And The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal and General Administration Secretariat Hyderabad and others … Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO.1458 OF 2011 & W.P. Nos.23115 and 22660 of 2012

¶8

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose) W.A. No.1458 of 2011

¶9

This writ appeal is directed against the order dt.18.10.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P. No.23437 of 2010. The appellants – petitioners filed the writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in not taking action against the encroachers of 40 feet wide road connecting Vijaya Mahal gate to culverts situated at Indira Chambers, Ramamurthy Nagar, Nellore Town, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to take immediate action against the encroachers for eviction.

¶10

On consideration of the matter, the Hon’ble Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition, observed that in view of the order dt.22.11.2004 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.9483 and 24946 of 2000, the writ petition was quite unnecessary and if the directions in the said writ petitions are not being implemented by the respondents, the writ petitioners shall be free to seek implementation of the said order by initiating appropriate proceedings.

¶11

Aggrieved by the said order of the Hon’ble Single Judge, present writ appeal is filed.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

As observed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in connected maters in W.P. Nos.9483 and 24946 of 2000, a Division Bench of this Court, on 22.11.2004 issued directions to the respondents that within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said order, they would take appropriate decision in the matter and ensure that the layout plan and Master Plan were duly adhered to and all encroachments, if any, were removed from the portion. With the same period, the State Government must consider the proposal of the municipal authority whether or not the Master Plan was to be modified or amended. In case, the Government decided not to amend the Master Plan, the encroachments must be removed within the period mentioned above and it would be for the respondents to act in accordance with law in demarcating and laying the approach road as per the layout plan.

¶14

There is no dispute that still there are encroachments in the matter in question in spite of the directions issued by this Court in the above said writ petitions. Hence, in the present appeal, on 4.9.2012, this Court directed the Collector to take steps in the matter in accordance with the order dt.22.11.2004 passed by the Division Bench in W.P. Nos.9483 and 24946 of 2000 and file a compliance report within two weeks. Accordingly, a compliance report has been filed by the Collector stating that the municipal authorities again issued final notice to the encroachers on 40 feet Master Plan road on 7.9.2012 directing the encroachers to vacate the land under their encroachment. As the encroachers have failed to do so as on 14.9.2012, the authorities took necessary steps and removed the encroachments on 15.9.2012.

¶15

In view of that, no further orders are necessary in this writ appeal.

¶16

Sri O. Mahoner Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners – alleged encroachers in W.P.M.P. No.2494 of 2012, which was filed for their impleadment in the appeal, submits that these petitioners have not been impleaded in the matter before passing the

¶17

order and they were directed to remove the encroachments. Hence, he seeks impleadment of the said petitioners and appropriate directions.

¶18

Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that there were unlawful encroachments and the earlier order dt.22.11.2004 passed by the Division Bench had to be given effect to. By virtue of the order passed by us on 4.9.2012 in this appeal, the compliance report has been filed before us as stated above. Hence, at this stage, we cannot turn around and set the action taken by the authorities in the matter at naught.

¶19

Accordingly, in view of the compliance report filed in the matter by respondent No.4 – District Collector, the writ appeal is disposed of. The implead application W.P.M.P. No.2494 of 2012 and the applications seeking interim relief stand dismissed. W.P. Nos.23115 and 22660 of 2012

¶20

In these writ petitions, the petitioners inter alia question the action of the respondent authorities in taking steps to evict them from the lands in question and for directions to the respondents not to evict them from the said lands.

¶21

In view of the above order in W.A. No.1458 of 2011, the writ petitions do not survive and are accordingly disposed of. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications also stand dismissed.

¶22

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶23

_____________________ 18.9.2012 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶24

bnr

Bramha Devi Mastanamma v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bramha Devi Mastanamma v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahabubnagar District Palamoori Migrant Labour Union Vs The Union of India., rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of

Banjara Welfare Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep., by its Principal

Migrants Rights Council, Affiliated to Migrant forum in Vs The Union of India

Garigipati Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Vs Sri T.Chandrasekhara Naidu

Katakam Rajeshwar Vs The State Bank of India

Chinthalaphani Pavani Vs The Joint Collector