Dismissed

G.Mujeeb Husain v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Telangana HC18 Feb 2013WP/2695/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a notice to vacate premises alleged to be encroaching on the road margin of National Highway No.219. It held that no right exists over road margins regardless of possession duration and affirmed demolition within the margin.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Petitioner permitted to claim rights over any own property located alongside the encroached road margin if identified through due process.

G.Mujeeb Husain Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2695 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner claims to be the owner of shops bearing Nos.16/354 & 355, and house bearing No.16/356 of Gandhi Road, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. The property is said to have been acquired by his mother through sale deed, dated 05-06-1980. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents issued notice, dated 28-01-2013, requiring him to vacate the premises, stating that it is an encroachment on the road margin on National Highway No.219. The petitioner submits that the notice is untenable in as much as no part of his property is within the road margin.

¶4

2. The writ petition came for admission on 30-01-2013. Initially, an interim order was passed and thereafter, on 01-02-2013 a direction was issued to the respondents to furnish a copy of the sketch to the petitioner, depicting the road, together with its margin and nature of encroachment made by him. In compliance with the same, the respondents have furnished copy of the sketch to the petitioner indicating the portion of the road margin, encroached by him.

¶5

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 and 2, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings for the 4^th respondent.

¶6

4. The petitioner is under the impression that the respondents are trying to demolish the house, constructed within the premises purchased by his mother. However, the sketch prepared by the respondents, discloses that the demolitions are within the road

¶7

margin. It is well settled that irrespective of the nature and duration of possession, no person can derive any right vis-à-vis any road margin.

¶8

5. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is, however, directed that in case, the petitioner is able to point out that in addition to the road margin encroached by him, he has got any own property by its side, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed against such portion, only after following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

6. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.

¶10

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶11

February 18, 2013. KTL

G.Mujeeb Husain v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Mujeeb Husain v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Rajesh Reddy, Vs Dr. Ntr University of Health Sciences

Mohd. Faheemuddin, Vs The Regional Transport Officer

Batini Sreenuvasu, Vs The Assistant Director

Methuku Ravindranath Vs Sure Krishnamurthy

Hav. J. Srinivasulu, Vs The Director of Sainik Welfare

P.Anitha D/o P.Parvathalu, Vs The Osmania University, rep. by its