A.Jagannath Swamy v. District at Alwal
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 09 May 2006
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:22nd October, 2008. // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.T ULASI DAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1:MR. R.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY, ST ANDING COUNSEL OF GHMC. T he Court made t he following :
ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed by A.Jagannath Swamy assailing the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the notices under Sections 228 (1), (2) & (3) of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 and under Sections 42(1) and 43(1) r/w. Ss.40, 42(5), 43(5)&(6), 44 and 51 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975.
The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 200 sq. yards in S.No.132/1 situated at Ramalingeswara Nagar, Machabolarum, Alwal Municipality, R.R. District having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 15.09.1997. The 1st respondent Municipality issued notices to the petitioner under Sections 228 (1) & (2) of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 and under Sections 42(1) and 43(1) r/w. Ss.40, 42(5), 43(5)&(6), 44 and 51 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 dated 09.05.2006 and followed by confirmation order (Notice) under Section 228(3) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, dated 03.06.2006. These two notices are under challenge in this writ petition.
Notice before admission came to be issued on 06.07.2006.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent issued notices impugned in the writ petition as the son of the petitioner filed a representation to the 1st respondent complaining some illegal constructions around the graveyard.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 1st respondent issued notice to the petitioner as provided under Section 228(1) & (2) of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 and under Sections 42(1) and 43(1) r/w. Ss.40, 42(5), 43(5)&(6), 44 and 51 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, directing him to remove the unauthorized constructions made by him. Since the petitioner failed to comply the provisional order, confirmation order came to be passed under Section 228(3) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965.
It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner filed an appeal as provded under Section 345 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 assailing the provisional order and confirmation order passed by the 1st respondent. In which case, the petitioner has to pursue the appeals filed by him. Therefore, invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the given facts and circumstances of the case is not warranted.
Operative part
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:22nd October, 2008. // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 — s. 228(3); A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975; A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 — s. 345.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 09 May 2006.
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.