Disposed

Shaik Begum v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC22 Mar 2017WP/10060/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice for encroachment removal. Finding a compromise, the Court relied on the municipality's undertaking to mark the encroached portion and serve a proper notice, thereby disposing the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications pending stand closed.

Shaik Begum Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10060 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy for petitioner and Sri Md.Saleem for the 2^nd respondent.

¶5

The petitioner challenges notice dated 27-02-2016 issued under Sections 192, 193 and 194 of the A.P. Municipalities Act primarily on the ground that the notice does not refer to the encroachment by petitioner warranting removal of the same and without specifically stating the extent of encroachment, issuing notice in a vague manner, thereafter coming and demolishing both encroached and un-encroached portion, amounts to illegal and arbitrary exercise of power.

¶6

The counsel for 2^nd respondent submits that the petitioner is called upon to remove the encroachment of road margin. He further submits that if for any reason, the marking, as stated by the petitioner, is not carried out by the respondent/ Municipality, the respondent/ Municipality undertakes to mark the road margin in the possession of petitioner within two weeks from today and serve a notice on the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner can be given two more weeks from the date of receipt of notice to remove the encroachment without any objection. If the petitioner does not do

¶7

¶8

so, the 2^nd respondent is given liberty to remove the encroachment on road margin.

¶9

The statement is placed on record.

¶10

The respondent/ Municipality undertakes to mark the encroached portion in road margin within two weeks from today and serves notice to petitioner for removing the encroachment within two weeks thereafter. The petitioner to remove the encroachment accordingly within the time granted by respondent/ Municipality. In default, the respondent/ Municipality is given liberty to remove the marked encroachment portion.

¶11

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no

¶12

order as to costs.

¶13

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶14

_____________ S. V. BHATT, J

¶15

Date: 22-03-2017 Note: Issue C.C. forthwith (B/ o) Prv

¶16

Shaik Begum v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Begum v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Wipro Limited Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gotika Narayan Reddy Vs Syed Jaffar Hussain

M/s. Mindlance India Private Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Srihari, Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Shekshavali Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Medhara Ramulamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh