The Writ Court closed the petition as the petitioner had already instituted a civil suit. The respondent Counsel stated no encroachment existed, assuring future action if violations arise.
Petitioner directed to pursue civil remedy O.S.No.1094 of 2014. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT PETITION No.13427 of 2017
ORDER:
The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.3 to 7 in encroaching 12 ft road at Isukathota, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam.
It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent Nos.3 to 6, who are the owners of land in D.No.54-3-29, Isukathota, Visakhapatnam, are getting constructed a tenement through respondent No.7 occupying 12 ft road and, without leaving set backs, construction is being made.
Sri S.Laxminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 - GVMC, on instructions, would submit that, pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner, respondent No.2 inspected the subject site and found no encroachments by respondent Nos.3 to 7, as alleged by the petitioner; as a matter of fact, respondent Nos.3 to 7 left over 5ft extra space while making construction; and, only on account of disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 6 dating back to 1964, such complaint has been made. He, however, assures that, if there are any violations in the construction made by respondent Nos.3 to 7, necessary action, in accordance with law, would be initiated.
Having considered the respective submissions, the petitioner was fair enough in filing a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.1094 of 2014, wherein respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein
2
are parties. It may also be noted that respondent No.2 – Commissioner, GVMC has been impleaded as defendant.
The relief claimed in the suit reads as under.
In view of the fact that the petitioner has already availed
the civil remedy and, in view of the categorical assertion by Sri S.Laxminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 - GVMC, that no encroachments are made by respondent Nos.3 to 7, the Writ Petition is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the civil remedy already initiated. However, the observations, made in this writ petition, shall not be construed as expressing any opinion with respect to the merits of the matter.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
___________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J
Date: 17.04.2017 usd
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to writ relief when a civil suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction is already pending.
Whether the Municipal Corporation needs to initiate action for encroachment when an inspection found no violation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent No.2 - GVMC
Respondent Nos.3 to 7
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
