Dismissed

K. Sudhakar, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Oct 2014PIL/212/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of PIL and linked writ petitions regarding illegal road constructions in Anantapur. Court noted the Nagar Panchayat building was demolished and directed Collector to act on individual encroachments. PIL deemed as not surviving.

What did the court decide?

PIL, W.P Nos 21326, 22730, 28233 of 2014 disposed of; pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed; no costs.

K. Sudhakar, Vs The Government of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶3

P.I.L.No.212 of 2014; W.P.Nos.21326, 22730 and 28233 of 2014

¶4

DATED:13.10.2014 P.I.L.No.212 of 2014 Between: K. Sudhakar, Anantapur District … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others … Respondents W.P.No.21326 of 2014 Between: T. Eswarappa, Anantapur District. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents W.P.No.22730 of 2014 Between: T. Eswarappa, Anantapur District … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents W.P.No.28233 of 2014 Between: J. Anwar Basha, Anantapur District and others

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶10

P.I.L.No.212 of 2014; W.P.Nos.21326, 22730 and 28233 of 2014

¶11

COMMON ORDER: (per Sri Sanjay Kumar,J)

¶12

Public Interest Litigation No.212 of 2014 was filed by a former Member of the Legislative Assembly seeking a direction to the authorities to remove the alleged illegal constructions raised on the road expanded at Km. 32/6 of Hindupur – Madakasira - Tumkur Road (Rajiv Gandhi Circle Madugiri Road), Anantapur District.

¶13

This matter was taken up for hearing on 15.09.2014 by this Bench and it was adjourned for a week to enable the authorities to respond. The 11^th respondent in the Public Interest Litigation was also directed to be put on notice.

¶14

Again, on 22.09.2014 when this matter was taken up, this Court perused the report furnished by the Collector, Anantapur District, in terms of the interim orders passed by learned Single Judges of this Court in two other Writ Petitions, W.P.Nos.21326 and 22730 of 2014. Therein, the Collector stated that a shopping complex was being constructed by the municipal body on the road portion without permission. The District Collector was accordingly directed by this Bench to take steps for demolition of the said shopping complex which was reported to have been constructed illegally and irregularly encroaching upon the road. When it was pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the 11^th respondent had also made illegal constructions and approached this Court by way of W.P.No.21326 of

¶15

2014 seeking to protect the same, this Bench perused the interim order dated 28.07.2014 passed in the said Writ Petition. On finding that the learned Single Judge had directed the Municipal Authorities not to interfere with the construction of the building of the 11^th respondent only if it was in accordance with the sanctioned plan, this Bench observed that the said interim order did not protect the 11^th respondent’s illegal constructions, if any. The District Collector, Anantapur, was accordingly directed to examine the issue as to whether the construction made by the 11^th respondent was in accordance with the sanctioned plan and if not, to initiate a demolition drive in this regard also. This Court also directed W.P.Nos.21326 and 22730 of 2014 to be tagged to this Public Interest Litigation.

¶16

On 26.09.2014, when this matter was again taken up by this Court, a report was filed by the Collector, Anantapur District, stating that action had been taken pursuant to the earlier order dated 22.09.2014. However, as the report submitted was not satisfactory, the Collector was directed to submit a fresh report. He was further directed to take action for demolition of the constructions made in violation of the rules and regulations and to realize the costs from the persons, who had made such illegal constructions. W.P.No.28233 of 2014 was also directed to be tagged with this matter.

¶17

On 07.10.2014, an undated report of the Collector, Anantapur District, was placed before us wherein it was stated that the Commissioner of the Nagar Panchayat, Madakasira, had taken steps for demolition of the shopping complex. Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the 11^th respondent that the construction made by his client was in accordance with law, the Collector, Anantapur District, was directed to submit a fresh report giving the details of the illegal constructions made and the dates on which demolition thereof was undertaken. The Collector was further directed to verify as to whether the construction made by the 11^th

¶18

respondent was in accordance with the rules and as per the sanctioned plan and if so, not to undertake demolition thereof.

¶19

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Collector, Anantapur District, filed a comprehensive report dated 12.10.2014 wherein he stated that the shopping complex constructed by the Madakasira Nagar Panchayat was illegal as it was on the road portion and no building permission was sanctioned by the Municipal Commissioner, Madakasira Nagar Panchayat. The Municipal Commissioner and the Assistant Engineer, Madakasira Nagar Panchayat, were held responsible for the said illegal construction. This illegally constructed shopping complex has admittedly been demolished. Insofar as the shopping complex of the 11^th respondent is concerned, it is reported that the approved plan obtained by the 11^th respondent was for construction of two floors. However, the finding of the Deputy Director, Town Planning, Anantapur, was that the 11^th respondent did not provide any set back as per the sanctioned plan and had encroached 3.97 mts towards Amarapuram road and 1.29 mts towards Madhugiri road. It was further stated that the 11^th respondent had commenced work for the 3^rd floor contrary to the sanctioned plan. The Collector further reported that the 11^th respondent claimed that he owned Ac.0.04 cents of patta land in Survey No.434-2 at Rajiv Gandhi Circle, Madhugiri road, Madakasira, but the construction of the shopping complex was made on 0.05½ cents, which was inclusive of 0.02½ cents of the patta land belonging to the 11^th respondent and 0.03 cents of the road in Survey Nos.434-1, 434-3 and 435-2. The Collector also furnished a detailed sketch indicating the nature of the constructions made by the 11^th respondent. He affirmed that only an extent of 0.02 ½ cents on which the shopping complex had been constructed belonged to the 11^th respondent and the remaining portion was the encroached road portion. The Collector stated that the shopping complex of the 11^th respondent was removed only to the extent of

¶20

deviations and encroachments on 06.10.2014.

¶21

Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation, states that in the light of the aforesaid developments, the cause in the Public Interest Litigation does not survive for further consideration.

¶22

Similar plea is advanced by Sri M.V.Raja Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.28233 of 2014.

¶23

In the light of the report of the District Collector, Anantapur, apportioning the blame of illegal construction of the shopping complex upon the Commissioner and the Assistant Engineer of Madakasira Nagar Panchayat, this Court is of the opinion that it is for the Government to apply its mind and decide as to whether any further follow up action, including disciplinary action, is required to be taken against the said officials in accordance with the law.

¶24

The learned Government Pleader states that there are some more illegal constructions in the shopping complex made by the 11^th respondent, which require to be demolished. If any further demolition needs to be done, the same shall be in accordance with law.

¶25

Insofar as W.P.No.22730 of 2014 is concerned, the said Writ Petition was filed by the 11^th respondent in the Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction to the authorities not to make any construction in front of his building at Rajiv Gandhi Circle, Madhugiri Road, Madakasira. This construction was obviously the shopping complex constructed by the Nagar Panchayat. This building has already been demolished, as is evident from the report of the Collector, Anantapur District. This Writ Petition has therefore become infructuous.

¶26

As regards W.P.No.21326 of 2014, the said Writ Petition was filed by the 11^th respondent in the Public Interest Litigation seeking a declaration that the action of the Commissioner, Madakasira Nagar Panchayat, in interfering with his construction and taking steps for

¶27

demolition was illegal, as there was no violation of the sanctioned plan dated 24.04.2014. It was in this case that an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge protecting the construction made only to the extent it was in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

¶28

As it is the case of the District Collector, Anantapur, that the 11^th respondent’s construction in the shopping complex was not in accordance with the sanctioned plan and he had also encroached upon the road portion and that demolition had been undertaken only to the extent of deviation from the sanctioned plan and the encroachments, it is for the 11^th respondent, the petitioner in W.P.No.21326 of 2014, to approach the competent forum to establish and prove his allegation that the demolition undertaken exceeded the deviations from the sanctioned plan and seek appropriate relief. Unless the 11^th respondent, the petitioner in W.P.No.21326 of 2014, demonstrates that his shopping complex, which was in consonance with the sanctioned plan, was also demolished, he would not be entitled to any relief even in terms of his prayer in W.P.No.21326 of 2014. This Writ Petition also stands disposed of with the liberty aforestated.

¶29

P.I.L.No.212 of 2014; W.P.Nos.21326, 22730 and 28233 of 2014 are accordingly disposed of.

¶30

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs.

¶31

_________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶32

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶33

Date: 13.10.2014 va

K. Sudhakar, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sudhakar, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Mr. Wasim Ahmed Khan, Vs The Andhra Sub-Area Commander

Mani Enclave Residents Welfare Association, Vs Union of India

P.H.Ramana, Vs The State of Telangana

B.Kishenlal Vs Government of Telangana as Rep by Principle Secretary

Gulam Rabbani Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

V.Narayan Rao Vs The Government of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary

B. Veeraiah, S/o. Vullakaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Lokseva Vs The Union of India