SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(AP) 859

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
M. Rajender Kumar and others
Versus
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep., by its Commissioner and Special Officer and others
W.P.No. 14345 of 2011
Decided on: 12-10-2011.

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, Senior Counsel for Mr. N. Prashant, Counsel for the Petitioners.
Advocate General for the Respondents.

Headnote:A) LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, Section 4 (1) - Constitution of India, Article 226:- High court under writ jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal under writ jurisdiction and decide the questions of discrimination raised by the petitioner whose land is acquired by the Municipal Corporation for road widening. However even on merits the court found the argument of the corporation that the land of the petitioner which is on the left side is more suitable as the traffic is more heavy on tha side and has a bend on the left side in comparison with the lands on the right side.

       B) LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, Section 4 (1) - Constitution of India, Article 226:-State is conferred with eminent domain and the hardship caused by the private parties cannot be interfered with in acquisition for the purpose of road widening to ease out the traffic congestion.

JUDGMENT

1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in threatening to demolish the petitioners' shops without passing any final orders on their representation, dated 28-4-2011, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. In their affidavit, the petitioners have, inter alia, pleaded that they are the owners and occupiers of their respective shop rooms in premises bearing No.6-1-1062/5 to 17; that the said premises are situated facing the road from Sant Nirankari Bhavan to Dwaraka Hotel at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad; that in the year 2003, a proposal was initiated for widening the existing road to 100 feet from Sant Nirankari Bhavan to Dwaraka Hotel; that no immediate steps were taken in that regard; that a communication was sent to petitioner No.9 on 10-1-2007 by respondent No.2 informing it that they are proposing to widen the road by acquiring 20 feet from its premises as against 10 feet which was stated to have been proposed in the year 2003; and that Respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 11-3-2011 addressed for the Executive Engineer informed that he was attaching the sketch plans of the properties affected in the road widening and requested him to prepare structural valuations of the properties and that respondent No.2 has shown structures to the extent of 12 feet 3 inches to 13 feet which were proposed to be demolished. The petitioners alleged that while seeking to widen the road, the respondents have ignored the other side of the road abutting which big establishments like Lazarus Hospital, Global Hospital, Collectorate building and several other commercial establishments exist; that the same was on account of political influence being brought upon the respondents; that when inspection has taken place on 1-12-2007 by Additional Commissioner, Chief City Planner and the Assistant City Planner, along with the concerned Section Officer, the road was measured and the existing width of the road was found to be 88.6 feet; that during their recent inspection on 12-4-2011, the respondents have assured that they require only 10 feet and asked the petitioners to give a representation; that on 28-4-2011 they gave a representation to respondent No.1 wherein they have expressed their readiness to handover to the extent of 10 feet without claiming any compensation; that without considering the said representation the respondents are insisting on acquiring to the extent of 20 feet on the road side; and that apprehending demolition of their shops, they filed the present Writ Petition.

3. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of respondent No.1 wherein it is, inter alia, stated that there were ten shops in premises bearing No.6-1-1062, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, which were being affected in the road widening proposals; that negotiations were held with the owners of these shops; that respondent No.1-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short "the Corporation") has taken up proposals to widen the existing road from Nirankari Bhavan to Dwaraka Hotel in two stretches, namely, from Lakdikapool to Nirankari Bhavan and from Niraknari Bhavan to Dwaraka Hotel; that the existing road on the two stretches is not uniform which varies between 60 feet to 70 feet and, accordingly, the affected portions on the two stretches are not uniform; that a road development plan was prepared and approved in the year 2002 and acquisition process was commenced; that the averment of the petitioners that the respondents initially proposed to acquire only 10 feet is incorrect due to variation in the road width; that the second stretch from Nirankari Bhavan to Dwaraka Hotel is having a steep gradient towards Dwaraka Hotel and as such all the vehicles coming from Ayodhya junction and other corners of Panjagutta are likely to converge at Nirankari Bhavan, proceed towards Dwaraka Hotel to take left turn towards Telephone Bhavan; that due to the steep gradient there is a likelihood of heavy vehiclular traffic proceeding





































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top