Macha. Ramesh v. Karimnagar District

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ . of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents no. 2, 4 and 5 in not taking any steps to widen the.road into 30 feets leading from front side of the petitioner premises no. 1-1-722, situated at Korutla Town to joining of the Bhagyanagar Road in pursuance of the resolution, dated 5-3-2013, and the letter addressed by the respondent no.2 to respondent no.S, dated 13-3-2013, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of Articles 1 4, '19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also violative of provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act. Consequently, direct the respondents no. 2, 4 and 5 to widen the road into 30 feets leading from front side of the petitioner premises no. 1-1-722, situated at Korutla Town to joining of the Bhagyanagar Road in pursuance of the resolution, dated 5-3-2013, and the letter addressed by the respondenl no.2 to respondent no.5, dated 13-3-2013 l.A. NO: 1 OF 1;014(WPMP. NO: 41674 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the resprrndents no. 2, 4 and 5 to widen the road into 30 feets leading from front side of tre petitioner premises no. 1-1-722, situated at Korutla Town to joining of the Eihagyanagar Road in pursuance of the resolution, dated 5-3-2013, and the letter ilddressed by the respondent no.2 to respondent no.5, dated 133- 2413 Counselfor th,e Petitioner: SRI K. VENUMADHAV Counsel for tl"re Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counselfor the Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY Counsel.for thr-. Respondent Nos. 3to5: SRI N. CHANDRASHEKAR, SC The Court made the following: ORDER '.rt l.l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No. 33327 of 2OL4 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents No.2, 4 and 5 in not taking steps to widen the road to 30 feet road leading from front side of the petitioner premises No.1-L-722, situated at Korutla Town to the Bhagranagar Road in pursuance of the resolution dated 05.03.2013 and the letter dated 13.03.2013 addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.5.

2. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and N.Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.3 to 5.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of the premises bearing H.No.1-l-722, situated near New Bus Stand, Korutla Proper and Mandal of Karimnagar District. There is a small road in front of his premises, which starts with a width of 3 feet and ends with a width of 9 feet, the passersby who commute from the main road to Bharyanagar and Bheemunidubba locality of Korutla Town, use this road, and a4L 2 which are put to lot of inconvenience including the petitioner as well as hir; family members. Petitioner submitted a representation to the res'condents No.2 and 4 requesting to expand the said road by making it as 30 feet road and respondent No.2 passed a unanimotrs resolution to expand the said road with a width of 3O feet. Respondent No.2 addressed a letter ROC.No.G1 /27I/2OL3, dated 13 03.2013, asking the respondent no.5 to submit the revised plans showing 3O feet wide road towards North side and also intirrrating that, the Municipal council passed a resolution No.683, Cated 05.03.2013, by which it is resolved to widen the road to 3() feet road by taking 15 feet from private householders and remaining 15 feet road has to provided by RTC department, therefore, informed the respondent no.S to submit revised plans showing iiO feet wide road towards North side. Even after passing the resolrrtion and addressing a letter dated 13-03-2013, no further action has been taken. Petitioner and his family members are being put to inconvenience and hardship and therefore, aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, present petition has been filed.

4. A ccunter has been filed on behalf of respondents No.3 to 5, contending that petitioner has approached this court by 3 suppressing material facts and that the petitioner himself raised construction abutting RTC bus station premises, without leaving mandatory setbacks and open space as required under municipal laws. Further, due to this violation in construction by the petitioner, there is only a gap of L.6 feet betr,veen the south- rvestern corner of petitioners property and the compound wall of the Korutla bus station, whereas, towards south-eastern side the gap is 11 feet and the petitioner is project in same as public inconvenience which is in-fact his own making.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 5 would submit that the petitioner has constructed the shopping complex contrary to the sanctioned plan without a\ t leaving mandatory setbacks and the respondents No.2 to 4 without considering this aspect .has passed resolution \ mechanically and therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed

6. Perusal of the record reveal that respondents No.3 to 5 constructed bus station in the year 1997 by duly obtaining permission from Grampanchayat, Korutla, and thereafter, raised compound wall around the property of bus station in the year 1997, by obtaining permission from Korutla Municipality. The petitioner has obtained permission dated 1O.12.1992 from l*-1 4 Korutla lilunicipality for construction of shops, however, made ) construction vrrithout leaving mandatory setbacks and 6 feet toad contrary to approved sanction plan. Thus, the petitioner has raised shcpping complex contrary to the sanctioned plan and has approached this Court with unclean hands'by suppressing the facts. 7 . In the light of above discussion, the writ petition is devoid of any merir- and the petitioner is not entitled to seek indulgence of this Court and hence, is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingiy, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC) to SRl. K. VENUMADHAV, Advocate [OPUC] 2. ONE C(; tO SRI. PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY 3. t*o-ct" to Gp FoR IuUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN 4. bne cc to sRl. r..t. c"trnuoRASHEKAR ,STANDING COUNSEL [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies IOPUCI DEViioi rrtl r rur, H ign co u rt for th e statq g[ re-!q.qq" 11 .?l .ILq ePLq9^ Io urt Btu w TJ / / I t S c() 1 6 rr8 7n7fi * j HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 ORDER WP.No.3ll327 of 2014 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 8,Pq,A &r',-