Petitioner challenged demolition attempt of his building for road widening without compensation. Court stayed demolition pending determination of title and allocation status by authorities.
Respondents directed not to demolish any structures of the petitioner in question without following due process of law.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.34645 of 2011
Between:
G.V.S. Ramakrishna … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its District Collector, Hyderabad District and others.
… Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.34645 of 2011
ORDER:
Questioning the action of the 2nd respondent, Commissioner, in trying to dispossess and demolish the building of the petitioner bearing H.No.1-5-15 and 15/A, in T.S. No.17/5/69 ‘B’ of Bakaram Village, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad for the purpose of road widening, without following due process of law, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of Plot admeasuring 197.28 square yards, equivalent to 164.83 square meters along with commercial building bearing Municipal No.1-5-15 and 15/A situated at Musheerabad, Hyderabad having purchased the same through a registered document No.2293/2003 from his vendors.
His main grievance is that in the process of road widening, his property is being affected. According to him, affected areas as per physical measurements 73 square yards i.e. 35 square yards of open land and 38 square yards of building with land but where as in the notification it was mentioned as 38.27 square yards only. In this regard, the petitioner, through his father, made applications dated 27.11.2008, 08.07.2011 and 11.11.2011 to the
3rd respondent requesting to include the other portion of the land affecting by virtue of the road widening and pay the compensation, before taking the possession of the land and demolition of structure.
Without following due process of law,
the 2nd respondent officials came to the property and made markings of 13’-0” feet of structure in depth and 26’-6” feet width apart from open land of 12’-0” feet depth and 26’-6” width totally 73 square yards of land and structure. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in taking the land of the petitioner to an extent of 35 square yards without following due process of law,
the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
On behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that the alleged affected portion has not been indicated in the sanctioned plan. As per the TSLR & ROM report submitted by Surveyor, Land Acquisition, GHMC vide Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC vide Lr.No.AA/1155/07, the front open space of the schedule property was already left open as GVM land while filing the Land Acquisition proposals for the proposed 100’ wide road. As per the ground position, the total land which is getting affected including the front set-back area is to an extent of 73.61 square yards out of which 38.27 square yards the land acquisition proposals has been made and the remaining 35.33 square yards as GVM land.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in respect of part of land compensation has already been paid but remaining part of the land, without paying compensation, the respondents’ authorities are threatening to demolish the structure of the petitioner, without following due process of law.
On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation would submit that to the extent of affected area belonging to the petitioner, compensation has already been paid and the claim of the petitioner with regard to alleged affected area does not fall within the parameters of the petitioner and the alleged
affected area has already left open as GVM land. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for in the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he was paid compensation in respect of part of land belonging to him, the authorities, without following due process of law and without paying compensation, are trying to take possession of some part of the land of the petitioner, for which, the learned standing counsel submitted that the alleged land was already left open as GVM.
Under those circumstances, I am of the view that whether the alleged land is belonging to the petitioner or it is left open as GVM is the matter to be considered by the authorities concerned. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition can be disposed of as under.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the respondents are directed not to demolish any of the structures of the petitioner in question, without following due process of law.
With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
Date: 20.04.2012 LSK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether respondents can demolish petitioner's structure in question without following due process of law.
G.V.S. Ramakrishna
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its District Collector, Hyderabad District
Commissioner
Municipal Corporation
G.CHANDRAIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
