Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
A. Prakash Reddy vs Municipal Corporation Of Hyd. And ... on 2 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(5)ALD272, 2000(5)ALT409, AIR 2000 ANDHRA PRADESH 511, (2000) 5 ANDHLD 272 (2000) 5 ANDH LT 409, (2000) 5 ANDH LT 409
ORDER
1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of house plot admeasuring about 233 Sq.yds., in Plot No. 13/A situated at Keshav Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad. He claims that he purchased the same under a un-registered agreement of sale dated. 11-7-1991 from Vigneshwara Co-operative Society. He approached this Court challenging Hie action of respondents 1 and 4 in laying down road in the land covered by Plot No. 13/A and also laying down a pipeline in the said plot. Before approaching this Court, the petitioner also approached the Civil Court by filing a suit being OS No.2231 of 1999 on the Hie of the Court of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said suit was filed against keshav Nagar Welfare Association. Vigneshwara Co-operative Society and one Vidwan Reddy alleging that they are trying to interfere with the alleged peaceful possession of the petitioner. The said Court granted an ex parte status quo order which is said to be in force.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jaganmohan Reddy submits that respondents 1 and 2 cannot encroach upon the property even for a public purpose without due process of law.
3. This Court issued notice before admission on 25-8-1999 and further directed the first respondent not to lay the road in the petitioner's land.
4. The 4th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that on verification it was found that there is no Plot No. 13/A and that the 4th respondent laid 200 mm. dia CI pipe in the open land which is left as a road in the layout and the same is in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989 ('the HMW Act' for brevity) and that there is no plot bearing No. 13/A.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for MCH submits that the alleged layout of Vigneshwara Co-operative Society is not approved and there is no sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. He also submits that even as per the layout filed by the 4th respondent there is no Plot No. 13/A and that under the guise of filing this writ petition the petitioner is trying to claim title to some non-existing land. The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not able to deny the allegation that the petitioner is claiming the title only based on an un-registered agreement of sale dated 11-7-1991.
6. The 4th respondent is a statutory Board constituted under Section 3 of the HMW Act. Chapter V of the said Act deals with Sewerage and Sewage Treatment works. Sections 56 and 69 of the HMW Act empower the 4th respondent to lay sewerage treatment works. Section 56 insofar as the same is relevant reads as under:
"56. Power to lay sewerage or sewage treatment work :--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, or any other law for the time being in force the Board may lay sewer or construct sewerage treatment work where within or without the local limits of the Hyderabad Municipal area :--
(a) in any street or any land vested in the Government the Corporation or any other local authority or any Government Company or Corporation owned or controlled by the Government.
(b) with the consent of owner or occupier of any land not forming a part of street in, over, or on that land and may from time to lime, inspect, repair or alter or renew or may at any time remove any sewer or sewerage treatment work, were laid under this Act or otherwise :
Provided that where a consent required for the purpose of this sub-section is withheld the Board may after giving the owner or occupier of the land a written notice of its intention so as to lay such works in, over or on that land even without such consent."
7. Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of HMW Act provides that in case the 4th respondent lays sewage treatment works in the land belonging to private owner it shall pay compensation. Sub-section (1) of Section 69 further lays down that if the Board feels that it is only technically feasible to lay sewerage line, may authorise the owner of the premises to lay such lines over, under or across another's property after giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause to the owner of the property. However, as already noticed, under subsection (1) of Section 56, the 4th respondent Board is well within its powers to lay or construct sewerage treatment works in any street or any land vested in the Government, Corporation or any other local authority without prior intimation. Unless the petitioner is able to show that Plot No.13/A belongs to him under a valid title deed, he well not be able to seek any remedy either under Section 56(2) or Section 69(1) of the HMW Act. As already held by me, the petitioner has not placed any material to contradict the contention of the first and fourth respondents that in the unapproved layout there is no Plot No.13/A and that the claim of the petitioner is not supported by any registered sale deed.
8. For the above reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2000/-