Smt Sela Brahmaramba v. The Commissioner Narsapur Municipal Council
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 18 Jul 2009
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Outcome
Disposed of
and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 s. 189
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the proceedings vide Rc.No.3457/09DG1, dated 18.7.2009 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to pay compensation for the land already encroached for laying of road and drain and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. RAMA MOHAN PALANKI Counsel for the Respondent : MR. S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15226 OF 2009
ORDER:
Operative part
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings dated 18.7.2009 issued by the respondent – The Commissioner, Narsapur Municipality - calling upon the petitioner to remove the premises No.9-2-15, Church Road, in Ward No.18, alleging that the same was constructed encroaching upon the municipal road margin in violation of Section 189 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner states that the alleged inaction on the municipal road margin is false and without any basis and immediately after receiving the impugned order, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 23.7.2009 through her advocate. Alleging that, without considering the said explanation, the respondent is proceeding further to demolish the structure in question, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already submitted a detailed explanation denying the alleged encroachment, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the respondent to consider the same before taking any coercive action. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.7.2009 issued by the respondent – The Commissioner, Narsapur Municipality - is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the explanation of the petitioner dated 23.07.2009 and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 28.07.2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 — s. 189.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 18 Jul 2009. The bench was G ROHINI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.