Partly allowed

Yejju Ramakrishna Vittal AAlias Rambabu v. The Special Officer Cum Commissioner, Bhadrachalam

Telangana HC10 Sept 2014WP/2863/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of two writ petitions regarding encroachment eviction orders. One petition sought implementation of an order; the other challenged an eviction order on jurisdictional grounds claiming the Municipality ceased to exist. The court quashed the eviction order, held jurisdiction rested with the Gram Panchayat, and disposed of the other petition.

What did the court decide?

The eviction order passed on 23.07.2007 by the first respondent was quashed. In W.P. No.2863, the petition was disposed of directing the Gram Panchayat to take appropriate action.

Yejju Ramakrishna Vittal AAlias Rambabu Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.2863 and 20863 of 2008

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.2863 of 2008

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the inaction of the respondents in implementing the order dated 23.07.2007 in Enc.Case No.P2/38/06, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that there are encroachers on the road margin at Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, and for their eviction he submitted a representation to the District Collector, Khammam, who in Rc.No.Lc4/378/2006 dated 19.04.2006 directed the Special Officer, Bhadrachalam, to take necessary action for removal of the encroachments according to law. The Special Officer, Bhadrachalam, issued a notice dated 03.05.2006 under Section 192 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act. The same was challenged by the encroachers by filing W.P.No.10055 of 2006 and batch, which were disposed of on 13.12.2006 giving liberty to the petitioners therein to submit explanations by treating the impugned orders therein as show cause notices. When the respondents passed orders subsequent to the explanation submitted by the petitioners therein, the encroachers filed W.P.No.20863 of 2008, and the same is disposed of along with this Writ Petition. When the order passed by the Special Officer, Bhadrachalam, dated 23.07.2007, was not implemented for a long time, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking implementation of the said order.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after passing of the order by the Special Officer – cum – Commissioner, Bhadrachalam Municipality, the Bhadrachalam Municipality ceased to exist and the Bhadrachalam Gram Panchayat, which is arrayed as the

¶8

second respondent, is having jurisdiction in the matter.

¶9

In the circumstances, the earlier orders passed by the first respondent are nonest in law and it is left to the second respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the encroachers.

¶10

Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.20863 of 2008

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed by the alleged encroachers challenging the orders of eviction dated 23.07.2007 passed against them. The petitioner in W.P.No.2863 of 2008 is arrayed as the sixth respondent in the present Writ Petition.

¶13

The proceedings are taken by the erstwhile Special Officer, who passed the ultimate orders of eviction on 23.07.2007. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Bhadrachalam Municipality ceased to exist, as Bhadrachalam is situated in the scheduled area and the authority, who passed orders of eviction, has no jurisdiction. Now, the affairs of the Bhadrachalam are being managed by a Gram Panchayat and in view of lack of jurisdiction, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. The said position is not disputed by the sixth respondent.

¶14

In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the first respondent on 23.07.2007 is quashed, and the Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 10.09.2014 vs

Yejju Ramakrishna Vittal AAlias Rambabu v. The Special Officer Cum Commissioner, Bhadrachalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yejju Ramakrishna Vittal AAlias Rambabu v. The Special Officer Cum Commissioner, Bhadrachalam

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

Kandukuri Venkata Sitarama Anjaneya Sarma Vs Eluru Municipal Corporation

M/s. Sri Narasa Raju Modern Rice Mill Rep. by its partner Vs The Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

Kandukuri Venkata Sitarama Anjeneya Sarma, Vs Eluru Municipal Corporation

Patnala Appa Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation

Bendala Hari Prasad, S/o Late Balram Murthy Vs The Divisional Forest Officer

Ch. Koteswara rao, Vs Tenali Muncipality, Tenali