Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mosa Mamata vs Prl Secy Municilpal Admn Hyd 2 Others And ... on 24 January, 2025
APHC010602892014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 28190/2014
Between:
Mosa Mamata, ...PETITIONER
AND
Prl Secy Municilpal Admn Hyd 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
2. M Krishna Rao SC for skl vzm kkd Municipal Corporations
3. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
4. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
WRIT PETITION NO: 28187/2014
Between:
Ganagala Maramma ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap Municipal Admn 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M Krishna Rao SC for skl vzm kkd Municipal Corporations
2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
WRIT PETITION NO: 28188/2014
Between:
Pampana Sitamma, E.g. Dist ...PETITIONER
AND
Prl Secy Municipal Administration Hyd 2 Ot and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
3. A MALATHI(S C FOR MUN CORP OF KAKINADA)
WRIT PETITION NO: 28189/2014
Between:
Rasipalli Adavamma, Eg District ...PETITIONER
AND
Prl Secretary Municipal Admin Hyderabad 2 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M Krishna Rao SC for skl vzm kkd Municipal Corporations
2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
4. A MALATHI(S C FOR MUN CORP OF KAKINADA)
WRIT PETITION NO: 28192/2014
Between:
Chokka Malleswari, E.g.dist ...PETITIONER
AND
Prl Secy Mun Admn State Of Ap Hyd 2 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M Krishna Rao SC for skl vzm kkd Municipal Corporations
2.
3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
WRIT PETITION NO: 28193/2014
Between:
Mosa Baby ...PETITIONER
AND
State Of Ap Prl Scy M A D Hyd 2 and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
2. M Krishna Rao SC for skl vzm kkd Municipal Corporations
3. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
4. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
WRIT PETITION NO: 28195/2014
Between:
Perla Durga Rao, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap Municipal Admn Dept 2 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
4. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP )
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
All these petitions are filed claiming same relief by different petitioners, challenging the notice dated 16.09.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent under Sections 401, 405 and 406 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and also the high handed action in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property situated in Ward No.2, Block No.48, Town S.No1984, Mosavari street, Dummalapeta, Kakinada, East Godavari district. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is appropriate to decide all the petitions by common order taking Writ Petition No.28190 of 2014 as leading petition.
2. W.P.No.28190 of 2014 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
"....to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the notice, dt.16-9-2014 issued by the 2" respondent under Sections 401, 405 and 406 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and also the high handed action in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property situated in Ward No.2, Block No.48, Town S.No1984, Mosavari street, Dummalapeta, Kakinada, East Godavari district and consequently direct the respondent not to demolish the basement constructed by the petitioner and also not to dispossess the petitioner from the property situated in Ward No.2, Block No.48, Town S.No1984, Mosavari street, Dummalapeta, Kakinada, East Godavari district, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..."
3. The petitioner herein is the owner of the land to an extent of 40 square yards in 11th division in P.S. No.1984 and got the property under patta vide Ref.No.B90/2008; ever since the petitioner is in possession of the said property. While so, on 16.09.2014, the 2nd respondent has issued a notice stating that the 2nd respondent has conducted an inspection on 18.08.2014 and found that the petitioner made a basement by occupying the land in Ward No.2, Block No.48 town Sy.No.1984 part and as per the TSFR, it is shown as poramboke and village site. It is further stated that the construction made by the petitioner is without obtaining any permission and as such, the petitioner was directed to remove the said illegal construction within three days from the receipt of the said notice, failing which the said constructions would be removed by the Municipal Corporation as per Sections 401, 405 and 406 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. The action of the 2nd respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property situated in Ward No.2, Block No.48, Town Sy.No.1984, Mosavari Street, Dummalapeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District by way of issuance of the notice dated 16.09.2014, is being challenged in the present petition.
4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 19.09.2014, this Court has passed the following interim order:
"The petitioner shall not undertake any further construction, she shall take photographs of the construction so far made by her from all the four sides and lodge one such set of photographs with the office of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Kakinada and also with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to be kept on the file of this case. Such photographs will be utilized for the purpose of verification at any later point of time. Since the Tahasildar, Kakinada Urban Mandal has intimated to the Municipal Corporation that the pattas referred to by the petitioner are not traced in the Government record at all, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the Tahasildar, Kakinada Urban Mandal within one week from today and produce the patta certificates in original in her possession and secure an appropriate certification from the Tahasildar that the certificate is a genuine one. Till then, she shall not deal with the land in question in any other manner."
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Sri. M. Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
6. During the course of arguments, learned Standing Counsel has contended that though this Court, by way of an interim order, has directed the petitioner to take photographs of the construction made as on that day from all the four sides for lodging the same in the office of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Kakinada and though the petitioner was directed to approach the Tahasildar, Kakinada Urban Mandal for producing the original patta certificate which is in her possession, till date, the petitioner has not complied with the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also admitted the said fact.
7. As the petitioner has not produced the original patta certificate before the Tahasildar, Kakinada Urban Mandal even as on today in pursuance of the interim order, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the same lines as that of the interim order.
8. In view of the above detailed discussion, W.P.Nos. 28187, 28188, 28189, 28192, 28193 and 28195 of 2014 are also liable to be disposed of.
9. Accordingly, since the Tahasildar, Kakinada Urban Mandal has intimated to the Municipal Corporation that the pattas referred to by the petitioners are not traced in the Government record at all, it shall be open to the petitioners to approach the Tahasildar, Kakinada Urban Mandal within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to produce the patta certificates in original in their possession and secure an appropriate certification from the Tahasildar that the certificate is a genuine one and thereafter furnish the said certificate to the 2nd respondent corporation; upon receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent shall initiate further course of action, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the notice dated 16.09.2014 is hereby set-aside. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from their subject property, without following due process of law.
10. Accordingly, with the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:24.01.2025 Gss