Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kuttuboina Venkata Rao, Prakasam Dist vs Prl Secy, Municipal Administration., ... on 2 July, 2019
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
W.P. (pil) No.101 of 2016
ORDER:(per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar}
1. The present writ petition came to be filed seeking the following relief:
"to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the official respondents in particular Respondents Nos.3 and 4 in removing encroachments made by respondents Nos.8 to 11 on the 110 feet Vura Cheruvu road in Ongole as illegal, arbitrary, and consequently direct the official respondents to remove the encroachments of respondents Nos.8 to 11 by following the due procedure of law in the interest of justice and in the public interest and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard both sides.
3. Perusal of the material available on record would show that there was a master plan earmarking 100 feet road. Though it was shown as 100 feet in the master plan, the authorities extended the same to 110 feet so as to cater and facilitate free flow of traffic in between two roads i.e., Kurnool road, which is the busiest road in Ongole town and a major hub for business and commercial transactions, and Vura Cheruvu road, which connects Kurnool road and Ghantapalam road. Further, the RTC bus stand, which is facing north side, is situated on the western side of Vura Cheruvu road, while on the eastern side of Vura Cheruvu road, there is Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Vegetable market. Apart from Vegetable market, there are flower, fruit, fish and mutton markets located in the said road. While so, respondents Nos.8 to 11 encroached upon a part of the said road proclaiming that they have got DKT pattas, and by initiating several cases against the official respondents. The averments made in the affidavit show that respondents Nos.8 to 11 filed 2 HACJ & CMR,J WP (pil) No.101/2016 a suit in O.S.No.419 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole and obtained injunction order against some of the official respondents. Since the Civil Court only directed the official respondents not to remove the encroachments forcibly, it is urged that nothing prevented the officials from taking steps to remove the encroachments by following due process of law. Their inaction led to filing of the present writ petition.
4. A counter-affidavit came to be filed by the 3rd respondent disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that though the petitioner got knowledge about filing of the suit by respondents Nos.8 to 11 i.e., O.S.No.419/2002 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, he did not pursue the same. It is stated that the Government Pleader, Ongole submitted a common judgment dated 10.12.2018 in O.S.No.121/2007 and 7/2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, wherein the Court below while decreeing the suit in O.S.No.7 of 2011, restrained the defendants and their subordinates therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs therein over the schedule property, unless and until they are lawfully evicted under due process of law. In fact, O.S.No.419 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, was transferred to Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole and renumbered as O.S.No.7 of 2011.
5. In view of the above, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pleads that steps may be taken for eviction of respondents Nos.8 to 11, who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.7 of 2011, from the schedule property by following due process of law.
3 HACJ & CMR,J WP (pil) No.101/2016
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality would submit that the steps are being taken up for eviction of the unofficial respondents and alternative land is being provided to them.
7. On mere submission that alternative land is being provided to the unofficial respondents, no positive direction can be given for allotment of alternative land. Having regard to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the authorities concerned to strictly comply with the procedure established under law, taking into consideration the orders passed by the Civil Court while evicting the unofficial respondents from the site alleged to have been occupied by the unofficial respondents. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ ___________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J Dated: 2.07.2019 Nn 4 HACJ & CMR,J WP (pil) No.101/2016 THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION (pil) No.101 of 2016 (Order delivered by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar} Dated: 2.7.2019 Nn