Disposed

K. Narayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC3 Apr 2017WP/11561/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging notices alleging unauthorized occupation of road margins. Liberty was granted to petitioners to submit explanations within two weeks before any further action or coercive measures could be taken by the Municipality.

What did the court decide?

Liberty given to petitioners to submit explanations within two weeks. No coercive steps to be taken by the Municipality pending consideration of explanations.

K. Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.11544, 11553, 11561, 11576, 11595, 11613, 11629, 11632, 11643, 11687, 11707 and 11710 of 2017

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶5

In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned notices dated 27.02.2017 issued by respondent No.2 – Municipality, alleging that they are unauthorisedly occupying the road margin. Petitioners further submit that the impugned notices are vague as they have inherited the subject property situated at Guntakal Road, Gooty Town, Anantapur District, from their ancestors, who had constructed houses thereat in terms of the sanctioned plan issued by the Gram Panchayat. It is only Gram Panchayat was converted into Municipality in the year 2014. Inasmuch as the petitioners had obtained permission from Gram Panchayat, it cannot be said that the constructions are illegal.

¶6

Sri M.D. Saleem, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, submits that respondent No.2- Municipality shall consider the explanations that would be submitted by

¶7

2 CKR,J W.P.No.11544 of 2017 & batch

¶8

the petitioners and, only thereafter, necessary action would be taken in accordance with law.

¶9

In the light of the submissions of the respective parties, liberty is given to the petitioners to submit their explanations within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the same shall be considered by respondent No.2 - Municipality, in accordance with law, and if the explanations are found not satisfactory, necessary action be taken in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 – Municipality shall not take any coercive steps till orders are passed, after considering the explanations submitted by the petitioners.

¶10

The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶12

JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶13

03.04.2017. Msr

¶14

3 CKR,J W.P.No.11544 of 2017 & batch

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶16

WRIT PETITION Nos.11544, 11553, 11561, 11576, 11595, 11613, 11629, 11632, 11643, 11687, 11707 and 11710 of 2017

¶17

03.04.2017 Msr

K. Narayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Narayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Its Principal Secretary

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

M/s K.M.C. Constructions Limited Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s K.M.C. Constructions Limited Having its Corporate Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Noor Ahmad, S/o. Late Khasim Saheb, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Janga Venugopala Reddy, Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

K.M. Ramaswamy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gundagoni Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by its Secretary