✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court

Orimetla Hanumanthu v. The Commissioner & Ors.

Writ Petition No. 18356 of 2011K C BHANU2 min read

Case at a glance

Judgment

Cause title

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

WRIT PETITION NO.18356 OF 2011

Between : Orimetla Hanumanthu ... PETITIONER

A N D The Commissioner and others. …RESPONDENTS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

WRIT PETITION NO.18356 OF 2011

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not disposing of the representations, dated

29.01.2011 and 22.06.2011, made by the petitioner in the matter of illegal constructions being undertaken by respondent Nos.2 to 12 by encroaching the road in Survey No.262, situated at Block No.12, Ward No.32, Backside of Mekala Mandi, Mancherial, Adilabad District, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short, ‘the Act’) and consequently to direct respondent No.1 to take immediate action for removal of illegal constructions being made by respondent Nos.2 to 12 in the above said survey number.

2.

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of plot bearing No.27, situated in Survey No.261/A, Rallapet Road, Mancherial, Adilabad District. Respondent Nos.2 to 12 are carrying construction of residential buildings on their plots by encroaching the Road and also without obtaining any permission from Mancherial Municipality. Therefore, the petitioner and colony members made a representation, 29.01.2011 to respondent No.1 stating that respondent Nos.2 to 12 are making illegal constructions by encroaching the road in Survey No.262 situated at Block No.12, Ward No.32, Backside of Mekala Mandi, Macherial, Adilabad District. Though respondent No.1 received representation made by the petitioner, it has not been considered and disposed of the same and it has not taken any action against respondent Nos.2 to 12. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3.

Respondent No.1 filed detailed counter-affidavit stating that the area in which respondent Nos.2 to 12 are making constructions is undeveloped area. Neither the landowner, nor these respondents formed any roads. Therefore, in the absence of filing of any documents by the petitioner or respondent Nos.2 to 12, encroachments could not be traced by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 issued notice, dated 24.06.2011 to respondent Nos.2 to 12 under Section 228(1) and (2) of the Act for removal of construction of basements constructed by them and further course of action is under process.

4.

Recording the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed respondent No.1, this Writ Petition is closed as the representation of the petitioner has been considered by respondent No.1-Municipality. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J NOVEMBER 04, 2011. YVL

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 18356 of 2011). ← Search more judgments