Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

{Per the Honble the Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan} This Writ Petition is filed in Public Interest seeking a mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 6 in not initiating action for removing the illegal and unauthorized construction of compound walls and gates by the 7th respondent, closing public access to the roads in the layout in R.S. No.498/2(P), 498/3(P), 499/1 & 2, 510/3A, 511(P), 518/1B & 2, 502/1&2 dated 31.01.2004 of Gollapudi village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District, surrendered to the 5th respondent-gram panchayat through registered gift deed dated 08.04.2011, and in not removing the illegal construction made by the 7th respondent in the lay out open space, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. A consequential direction is sought to respondents 1 to 6 to remove the constructed walls and gates which had resulted in public access to the layout roads being closed, and to remove the illegal constructions made by the 7th respondent in the layout open spaces.

The petitioner, an elected member of Ward No.13 of Gollapudi Grampanchayat, claims to be actively involved in undertaking development activities in the subject village, and to be in the forefront in putting forth public grievances before the authorities concerned. He also claims not to have any personal interest in the matter, and that the Writ Petition is filed only in the interest of the people of Gollapudi village, the general public, and people residing in surrounding colonies of Mahatma Gandhi Wholesale Commercial Complex. The petitioner alleges that a second floor was illegally constructed over the permitted ground and first floor; the general public was facing inconvenience because of closure of these roads; despite higher officials having directed the 5th respondent several times to remove the walls and gates, they have not removed them so far; and removal of the walls and gates erected by the 7th respondent, closing public access to the layout roads vested in the 5th respondent, was necessary to prevent misuse of public roads and open spaces in the layout.

According to the 7th respondent, Sri A.V. Krishna Rao, who was the owner of the land on the southern side of the complex, and who has access to his land through a 33 feet wide road on the Northern side of his land, also has access through Mahender Nagar and Ambedhkar Nagar; the internal roads, adjacent to the plots of Sri A.V. Krishna Rao and others, are only 20 feet wide roads; the remaining 20 feet area, adjacent to these 20 feet roads, is earmarked for parking; these 20 feet wide internal road are not viable for traffic; there is only one 40 feet road in the lay out which is connected, on the eastern end, to the 100 feet Venkateswara foundry road, and is connected on the western end to the 40 feet road in the Venkateswara colony; there is no other 40 feet road in the lay out; the petitioner is the brother-in-law of Sri A.V. Krishna Rao, and the relief sought in this Writ Petition is similar to that of W.P. No.18639 of 2016; and they were not preventing the general public from accessing the layout roads wherever the lay out roads are connected to the Municipal panchayat roads or the National Highway.

With regards the allegation that the Writ Petition as filed is not in public interest, the petitioner states that he was born and brought up in Gollapudi village; there are more than 100 families, of his close relatives, living in the said village; the 7th respondent complex was near his house; he was the Ward Member of the locality wherein the 7th respondent shopping complex was located; being a public representative of the locality, it was his duty to attend to the specific grievance of members of the locality, and grievances of the general public living in the entire area; he had mentioned, in his writ affidavit, regarding the Writ Petitions filed by Sri A.V. Krishna Rao on the one hand, and the 7th respondent on the other; he had also enclosed the Writ affidavits and counter- affidavits filed by the respondents; he has not suppressed any facts; in the Writ Petition filed by Sri A.V. Krishna Rao, removal of only one wall, which restricts access to his site from the layout road, was sought; in the present Writ Petition, filed in public interest, the petitioner prays for opening of all the layout roads to public access; with regards Crime No.160 of 2016, filed by the 7th respondent, the complaint itself alleges that the Vice-President of the Grampanchayat had got the compound wall demolished, and the petitioner was standing near the same; he had forgotten about the police having obtained his signature, and did not inform the same to his counsel when the writ affidavit was drafted; this was purely a mistake for which he tendered apology; there was no personal animosity or dispute between him and any of the members of the 7th respondent; and if the layout roads are made open to the general public, residents of all the surrounding colonies would be benefited on securing free access to these roads.