Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1134 (AP)

Ch. Sugunamma v. District Collector

2013-12-10

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2013
Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in stopping the construction work of the petitioner over 281.66 sq. yards in plot Nos.93 and 94, situated in Sy.No.115 of Bhanunagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad (for short “the subject land”) as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims ownership over the subject land under registered gift settlement deed dated 28-1-2006. The petitioner pleaded that she along with one P. Venkat Reddy, who is the owner of plot No.93 admeasuring 289 sq. yards, entered into a development agreement with a builder for construction of Stilt+Ground+Three floors; that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) has issued permission vide File No.382/B/93-94/1/17/2009 on 6-8-2010; that when the petitioner started construction, three persons belonging to the locality have lodged a complaint to respondent No.3 and that the said persons have also allegedly got a news item published in Eenadu Telugu Daily on 24-11-2010 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner has encroached upon the land earmarked for construction of a school for poor students. The Lok Ayukta of Andhra Pradesh has taken suo motu cognizance of this news item as complaint No.2145/2010/B1 and issued notices to respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the Inspector of Police, Saidabad. In pursuance of the said notice, respondent No.3 and the Project Director, Housing Department got a joint inspection done by the Mandal Surveyor and submitted a joint inspection report dated 13-1-2011 wherein it was found that the petitioner has not encroached upon the Government land. The District Collector submitted a report based on the said joint inspection report and considering the same, the Lok Ayukta has closed the enquiry by his order dated 2-1-2012. As the above three persons of the locality were persistently running after the petitioner, she has filed O.S.No.3230/2010 for permanent injunction and the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad has decreed the said suit exparte on 20-10-2011. After closing of the complaint by the Lok Ayukta, the petitioner again applied for building permission along with the said P. Venkat Reddy on 31-5-2012 and after due verification of the documents, the GHMC has granted building permission vide File No.37954/31/05/2012 dated 11-10-2012. After closing of the complaint by the Lok Ayukta, the petitioner again applied for building permission along with the said P. Venkat Reddy on 31-5-2012 and after due verification of the documents, the GHMC has granted building permission vide File No.37954/31/05/2012 dated 11-10-2012. When the petitioner has resumed the construction work, a fresh complaint was given to respondent Nos.2 and 3 by the said three private individuals and based on the same, respondent No.3 and her staff went to the construction site on 31-12-2012 and high handedly forced the petitioner’s builder to stop the construction work. Feeling aggrieved by the interference with the petitioner’s construction by respondent No.3, the present Writ Petition is filed. Respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit wherein she has inter alia admitted the facts pleaded by the petitioner relating to the joint inspection report and closing of the complaint by the Lok Ayukta. She has further stated that at the time the joint inspection has taken place, there was no encroachment over the land meant for VAMBAY Housing Scheme, but, the petitioner has subsequently encroached upon the neighbouring Government land. Respondent No.3 further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner submitted an application for transfer of her rights under G.O.Ms.Nos.257 and 258 dated 29-3-2013 r/w. G.O.Ms.No.166 and that in her regularisation application dated 3-12-2011 the petitioner has mentioned Sy.No.114 (old) and that this itself shows that the petitioner is in occupation of the Government land and has been raising construction thereon. The fact that the allegation made earlier against the petitioner that she has encroached upon the Government land was found false, is admitted by respondent No.3. The closing of the complaint by the Lok Ayukta based on the joint inspection report is also admitted by respondent No.3, which shows that at least till 21-5-2011, the petitioner has not encroached upon the Government land. The fact that the petitioner has obtained a fresh building permission from the GHMC is also not in dispute. The approval of the building permission by the GHMC raises a presumption in favour of the petitioner that the building is proposed to be constructed in her private land. If the petitioner has encroached upon the Government land, the officials of the GHMC will not remain silent spectators. As of now, the officials of the GHMC do not appear to have interfered with the construction activity of the petitioner. If the petitioner has encroached upon the Government land, the officials of the GHMC will not remain silent spectators. As of now, the officials of the GHMC do not appear to have interfered with the construction activity of the petitioner. If the petitioner has really encroached upon the Government land after closing of the complaint by the Lok Ayukta, respondent No.3 is expected to have issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon her to vacate the land. It is not the pleaded case of respondent No.3 that any proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 have been initiated. If respondent No.3 feels the responsibility of protecting the Government land, she needs to follow the lawful procedure. She cannot act like a lawless private individual by seeking to physically interfere with the petitioner’s construction activity being carried on under an approved building plan issued by the competent authority. The action of respondent No.3 in interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the land in question and the construction activity constitutes patent arbitrariness. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, by restraining respondent No.3 from interfering with the construction activity of the petitioner without following the due legal process. As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.3919/2013 and 34766/2013 are disposed of as infructuous.