Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 594 (AP)

Bezawada Durga Prasad v. Palakol Municipality

2020-09-09

M.GANGA RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT M.Ganga Rao, J. - Questioning the inaction of the 1st respondent in taking further course of action pursuant to the notice, dated 20.02.2018, for demolition of the unauthorized constructions made by the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that as the 2nd respondent is making constructions in contravention of the approved plan and not only causing obstruction to the petitioners but also affecting their easementary rights, they submitted a complaint to the respondent authorities on 27.01.2018 and basing on the complaint given by the petitioners, a preliminary notice and a final notice dated 20.02.2018 were issued. The 2nd respondent filed O.S.No.41 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Palakol, questioning the notice, dated 20.02.2018, only to drag on the issue. As per Section 369 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, the 2nd respondent cannot maintain the said suit. Under the guise of pendency of the suit, the 2nd respondent is proceeding with the constructions. However, no further action is taken by the 1st respondent to stop the illegal constructions. 4. Learned standing counsel states that the 1st respondent is under statutory obligation to take appropriate action in pursuance of the final notice, dated 20.02.2018, and if a reasonable time is granted, the 1st respondent will take appropriate action as per law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that IA.No.308 of 2018 filed in OS.No.41/2018 seeking interim injunction was dismissed on 11.09.2018 against which the 2nd respondent preferred C.M.A.No.6 of 2018 before the VI Additional District Judge's Court, Narasapur. Pending civil proceedings before the competent civil Court, the 1st respondent may not take any coercive steps for demolition of the alleged constructions made in deviation of the sanctioned plan. 6. Having regard to the submissions of all the counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the 1st respondent, having given notices, failed to take further course of action as per law to remove the deviations made by the 2nd respondent. 7. 6. Having regard to the submissions of all the counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the 1st respondent, having given notices, failed to take further course of action as per law to remove the deviations made by the 2nd respondent. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take further action in pursuance of the notice, dated 20.02.2018, as per law, as expeditiously as possible, and not later than a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, any action that may be taken shall be put on notice of the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.