Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 510 (AP)

M. Venkata Ramana v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-08-07

M.GANGA RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT M. Ganga Rao, J. - This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in demolishing the structures in D.Nos.7-7-13-2 and 7-7-13-2A admeasuring 451.27 square yards, Dhone, Kurnool without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the parents of the petitioner purchased land admeasuring Ac.4.80 cents in Sy.No.377/B vide registered Document No.1207/1961 and land admeasuring Ac.12.55 cents in Sy.No.376/2 vide registered document No.515/1963 in total Ac.17.35 cents within the limits of Dhone Municipality. Land an extent of Ac.1.20 cents was sold by making plots vide L.P.No.82/84 and an extent of Ac.1.20 cents was inherited by way of gift settlement deed vide Document No.2095/1996, in which the petitioner constructed RCC building by obtaining permission from the then Gram Panchayat around 20 years back and presently he had entrusted the same to Sri Muniswamy Technical and Rural Development Educational Society, Dhone for running a Degree and PG College. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 02.01.2020, the 2nd respondent Municipality issued a notice in proceedings Roc.No.22A/G1/2020, dated 02.01.2020 alleging that the management of the school had encroached 40 feet and 30 feet road, which is meant for public usage, by erecting stones and causing inconvenience to the public and directing to remove the said encroachment within three days, failing which the 2nd respondent Municipality will undertake the same and recover expenses as per Section 192 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. However, on 07.01.2020, the staff of the 2nd respondent Municipality visited the premises and removed the trees, fencing and stair case with JCBs thereby causing damage worth of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The said highhanded and illegal action of the 2nd respondent Municipality is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the notice dated 02.01.2020. Aggrieved by the said arbitrary action, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the respondent-Municipality. 4. On perusal of the record, it appears that pursuant to the notice of encroachment dated 02.01.2020, the 2nd respondent Municipality demolished more than 20 trees and structures and due to the said demolition, the petitioner sustained loss worth Rs.5.00 lakhs. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the respondent-Municipality. 4. On perusal of the record, it appears that pursuant to the notice of encroachment dated 02.01.2020, the 2nd respondent Municipality demolished more than 20 trees and structures and due to the said demolition, the petitioner sustained loss worth Rs.5.00 lakhs. The relief sought for by petitioner to declare the action of the 2nd respondent Municipality in demolishing the structures without any authority as illegal and also to direct the respondent authorities to pay damages for removal of the structures cannot be granted in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the remedy of the petitioner in seeking such relief is elsewhere by approaching a competent civil court. The only remedy left to the petitioner is only to submit explanation to the notice of encroachment dated 02.01.2020 and he is at liberty to submit his explanation with all details. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court, in the interest of justice, felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed explanation to the notice of encroachment dated 02.01.2020 and on such explanation being submitted, the 2nd respondent Municipality is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders as per law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the explanation. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.