Allowed

Smt Ponnapalli Seetharatnam v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC24 Mar 2014WP/25496/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the unauthorized demolition of a building by municipal authorities. The Court directed the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings under the A.P. Municipalities Act and pay compensation within six months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to initiate action under A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and pay compensation within six months.

Smt Ponnapalli Seetharatnam Vs The Revenue… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.25496 of 2008

¶2

DATED: 24.03.2014

¶3

Between:

¶4

Smt. Ponnapalli Seetharatnam And The Revenue Divisional officer, Narsapur West Godavari district & another

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

The Court made the following:

¶8

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.25496 of 2008

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶11

2 . This writ petition was filed challenging the action of the respondents in demolishing part of petitioner’s building bearing D.No.7-1-62, situated in Narsapur Municipality, without issuing any proceedings and not paying any compensation.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a notice was also got issued on 21.09.2007 with regard to demolition made and a reply was issued by the 2^nd respondent on 15.10.2007 denying the allegations of the notice and also stated that since no proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act was not taken, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation.

¶13

4. The case of the petitioner is that her husband is a medical practitioner and he was running a clinic in the ground floor of the building and the family was residing in the first floor. In the year 1988, in the vacant site adjacent to the building, she constructed four shop rooms and a residential portion in accordance with the approved plan after obtaining permission from the Municipality. While so, in the month of March 2003, without issuing any notice either oral or in writing, the 2^nd respondent under the supervision of the 1^st respondent, suddenly started demolishing the above building with the aid of proclainer and when questioned about their action, it was stated that they are widening the road. The respondents have not given time to salvage the furniture and other articles and they took possession of an extent of 50.5 sq. yards.

¶14

5. The 2^nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit simply denying the averments and stating that they never demolished the building of the petitioner as contended by the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent stated that during the road widening process, the R&B Department

¶15

marked the encroachments and the occupiers removed the marked portions voluntarily and the respondents removed the other encroachments. It is further stated that the respondents never acquired the property of the petitioner and hence, the Land Acquisition Act has no application.

¶16

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order in WP No.13603 of 2003 and batch dated 10.02.2014 in respect of the demolitions in the same area and submitted that the said judgment covers the present case also.

¶17

7. In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to initiate action afresh under the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and pay compensation to the petitioner to the extent of her property affected and the said exercise shall be completed, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Pending miscellaneous petitions in the writ petition, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

¶19

A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J

¶20

Date: 24.03.2014 BSS

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 7

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.25496 of 2008

¶23

Date: 24.03.2014

¶24

BSS

Smt Ponnapalli Seetharatnam v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ponnapalli Seetharatnam v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Shaik Khirunnisa Begum Vs The Superintendent of Police

Nallapaneni Venkata Ratnam Vs The District Collector (Cs) Prakasam District.

V.Allvelu, Vs The Govt. of a.P.,rep. by its Secretary, Randb,a.P.

Dr. R. Surender Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Gandhipuram IV Block Members Welfare Vs The Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry

B.Sreeramulu, Vs The Executive Engineer (Randb) Puttur