The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Jagtial, Karimnagar

2. Jagtial, Karimnagar 3. The Govemment of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Prl.Secretary, M.A.and UD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad Rl C.'I. is amended as per C.O. daled 1U':A2U4 in W.P.M.P. No. 185o of 2014 ...RESPOI.IDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancq; stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction' more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No'1 in issuing Noticer; No 02/G1/M'C'J'/2014 dated 1O'O1'2014 to the Petitioners without following any legal procedure as arbitrary' illegal' violative of Articles 14' 21 and 300-A of the C()nstitution of lndia and consequently setaside the said notices 4 1 Petition runder Section 151 CPC PraYing that in the circumstances stated in High Court may be Pleased to the Petitioners houses situated Circle, Market Road' Jagtial' Karimnagar the affidavit filt:d in support of the direct the respondent authorities not between Tahsil Chowrastha to Tower District during pendency of the Writ Petition petition, the to demolish Counsel for the Gounsel for the Petitioners: sRl. G. No. 1: SRI PUTTA (sc ;ru Gounsel for Counsel for No.2: No.3: GP The Gourt made the follo\i'ing: E MUNICIPAL ADMINTSTRATION ENT E SRT JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA HON'BL ALISHETTY 4 ORDER:. This Writ Petition is frted seeking the following substantlve relief: "to issue a writ of Mandamw declaring the acfion of respond'ent No'l in issuing nofices dated 10'0 1'20 I 4 to No.02/G1/M'C'J'/2014 any legal the petitiowrs' witltout following procedure, as arbitrary' iltegal und violative of Articles t4' 2l and 300-A of the Const.ituttonoflndiaandconsequently,to set aside the said notices"'

2. Fleard Sri G'Madhusudhan Reddy' learned counset for the petitioners, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel tbr respondent No.l and learned Assistant Government Pleader tbr Revenue appearing for respondent Nos'Z and 3 '

3.Learnedcounselforthepetitionerssubmittedthatthe petitioners are owners and possessors of their respective houses situated at Market Road, Jagtial, Karimnagar District; that earlier' the road teading from Tahsil chowrastha to clock Tower circle' Jagtial, was widened from 18 feet to 40 feet and the petitioners \ \ \ 2 *r rr.rOOU ffi',1 have voruntariry removed the strucfures taking any compensation raised by thern without for such road widening. Learned counsel further subrnifted that again, respondent No.I issued the impugned notices staring rhat as per the Master pran, the width of the said road is 'r5 feet and therefore, the structures raised by the petitioners are ilregar encroachmenh and hence, directed the petitioners to remove the iregar structures within a period of seven days, fairing which, ar:tion wi, be hken under sections 1g2 andlg4 0f the Andhra pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965

3. l. Lea,:ned counsel further subrnitted that rn response to the rmpugned notices, dated 10.0r .20r4,the petitioners have submitted their individuar replies, dated lg.0l .2or4,stating that they have nor made any Lrnauthorized constructions by encroaching the road and requested the respondents to withdraw the nodces. He further submitted that the respondents, without considering the repries submitted b.r the petitioners, are making attempts to demolish the structures arrd hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present'Writ Petition'

3.2. Learned counsel for petttioners funher submitted that f92(1) (a) olthe Andhra PradeshMunicipalities Act' t'Ut Section ,', 3 LNA, J WP.No. 1006 of 20 la enables the Commissioner to remove any encroachment over any street; and as per Section 192(2) of the said Act, if the occupier of the premises proves that the encroachment had existed for a period sufficient, under the law of limitation, to give any person a prescriptive title thereto; or that it was erected or rnade with the permission or license of any municipal authority duly empowered in that behale rhe council shall make reasonable compensation to every person who suffers damage by removal or alteration of the 3'3' Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that the petitioners have raised structures by dury obtaining permission from Municiparity, much prior to approval of Master pran and as such' the structures raised by petitioners are not illegal sfuctures rnade by encroaching the road. 1n any event, the respondents have to fbllow rhe provisions of the M[nicipalities A"*, 1965, parricurarry Section s rg2(r) ard 1g2Q) thereof before hking any sreps fbr renrovar/demorition of subject structures raised by the 4' on the oth'er hand, rearned Standing counser for respondent No'1 subrnitted that the respondenrs wourd consider the individual petitioners. j I t I 4 INA, J I{P.No.1006 of20l4 replies submitted by the petitioners and pass orders, and thereafter, take steps in accordance with the A.P. Municipalities Act 1965, and prayed to grant reasonable time to consider the replies submiued by the petitioners to the impugned notices and to pass orders tnereof.

5. C,:nsidering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.l, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respon'Cent No' l to consider the individual replies submited by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' Respondent No' I shatt cause notice to the petitioners' afford thern opportunit'v of hearing and then' pass speaking orders and duly cr)mmunicatc the sarne to the petitioners' 6. Mist:ellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed' No costs. sdr-u l[RuEcoPYll sEclloN OFFTCER -TT::'-$ Jagtia\' Ofilce' Secretaflat' 1o' I tl:$i:::::l;'":::.",i r \h! uioe'abd loPUcl

4. One'C'C to SRl. G. MADHUSU DHAN REDDY Advocate 5. One CC to SRl. PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY (SC O. two-Cis to GP FOR REVENUE High Courtforthe State of Telangana, at z. r'iro-cds io' Gp FOn UUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN Hyderabad IOUTI DEVELOPMENT ,High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [our] )

8. Two CD Copies BM PMK w \ HIGH COURT DATED:2010812025 ORDER WP.No.1006 of 2014 ,],c Y\ 't Y. 0 6 tts 1d{Ye ii * :! I wRrr P Errr roN ili{,i.iltt'35JJ'