Telangana High Court
Pathri Surya Bai vs The State Of Telangana on 27 December, 2023
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.34670 of 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in trying to acquire the land of the petitioner bearing plot No.A7 admeasuring 95 sq. yards forming part of Survey Nos.119 & 166 situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal/Municipality, Hyderabad, for the purpose of widening of road from 80 feet to 100 feet without issuing any notice, as being illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.4 to 6, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department appearing on behalf of respondent No.7, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
3. Petitioner contends that her husband, late Pathri Krishna, was the absolute owner and possessor of property bearing plot No.A7, admeasuring 95 sq. yards forming part of Survey Nos.119 & 166 situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal/Municipality, 2 Hyderabad, having acquired the same under a registered sale deed dt.28.01.2004.
4. Petitioner further contends that there have been certain civil disputes between her husband and their neighbour, by name Bhasker Rao, in respect of the aforesaid land; that the petitioner's husband had approached the respondents-authorities and obtained building permission on 07.11.2022; that on account of the sudden death of the petitioner's husband, she could not proceed with the construction; and that taking advantage of the situation, the respondents-authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property claiming that there exists a 80 feet main road, which the respondents-authorities intend to widen to a 100 feet road.
5. Petitioner further contends that as she was not issued with any notice by the respondents-authorities for acquiring the petitioner's land for the purpose of widening of road from 80 feet to 100 feet, the authorities be directed to follow due process of law before initiating any action to dispossess the petitioner from her property.
6. Petitioner further contends that the respondents-authorities without following the procedure known to law, in collusion with the legal heirs of her neighbour, Bhasker Rao, are intimidating/threatening the petitioner to vacate the subject premises including the temporary structure existing therein.
7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 6 has placed before this Court, written instructions, 3 dt.27.12.2023, under the signature of DCP-21, whereby it is stated as under:
"This respondents further submits that this office is not widening any road in the questioned site as alleged by the petitioner, if the respondent requires the any land for widening, the same will be acquired by following due process of law".
8. By the aforesaid written instructions, it is further stated that the plot dimensions of the petitioner are not tallying with the ground position and taking advantage of the same, petitioner is claiming the road portion as their plot and thereby encroaching on to the existing road day-by-day by installing temporary huts.
9. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 submits that the authorities are not laying any road, and if any such road is to be laid, the authorities would follow due process of law.
10. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
11. While the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 submit that the said authorities are not taking up any road widening work in the subject site, respondents No.4 to 6, on the other hand, by their written instructions, would contend that the petitioner is encroaching on to the road portion claiming the same as her plot.
12. Be that as it may, even if petitioner is to be considered as an encroacher, it is settled position of law that even for evicting an encroacher, due process of law has to be followed, as has been held by 4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lallu Yeshwant Singh v/s. Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors. 1 and Meghamala v/s. G.Narasimha Reddy 2.
13. Since the 1st and 2nd respondents have indicated that the authorities would follow due process of law in the event the authorities intend to take up any road widening work, this Court is of the view that the said authorities are to be directed to follow due process of law, even to remove the alleged encroachment by issuing a notice indicating therein the extent of alleged encroachment made; afford sufficient time to the petitioner to submit her explanation; and thereafter, by considering the explanation, if any, submitted before taking any further action.
14. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims of the petitioner.
16. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 27th December, 2023.
gra 1 AIR 1968 SC 620 2 (2010) 8 SCC 383 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.34670 of 2023 Dt.27.12.2023 gra