Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 610
In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
P. NAVEEN RAO, J.
R. Venkateswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, Rep. by its secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 34382 of 2016
Decided On : 16-11-2016
For the Petitioner: M.V. Pratap Kumar
For the Respondents: P. Kesava Rao, V.V. Anil Kumar, M. Karibasaiah
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 14 - Petitioner claims to be the owner of property bearing plot Road - Petitioner is aggrieved by the construction of foot over bridge opposite to his house adjacent to the compound wall of the petitioner – Petitioner he had a plot of a size square yards earlier Government took over square yards of his property for widening of the road and as a result he is left with square yards of plot this plot has access to main road as well as 40 feet byline road - Learned counsel for petitioner learned standing counsel for GHMC for respondents - Learned counsels for the private respondentsrespectively - Property and the right of frontage - This right is sought to be affected on account of decision of the respondents to construct a foot over bridge on Road of Banjara Hills in front of property of the petitioner - No such right can be taken away without following due process - Decision to construct a foot over bridge in front of property of the petitioner occupying 18 meters of frontage space on the road facing of the property thereby curtailing the access to the property only to an extent of 6 meters could not have been made without putting the petitioner on notice and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and without compensating for the loss caused to the petitioner - Property will have greater value if it is having wider frontage to main road. On account of construction of foot over bridge, the value of the property would diminish - He would therefore submit that the action of the respondent authorities in constructing foot over bridge in front of property of the petitioner has adverse civil and evil consequences and whenever a decision of the authority results in evil and civil consequences it is mandatory to follow due process of law before affecting such right - On this ground alone the entire exercise is liable to be declared as illegal – Held, When a decision of the competent authority is for the benefit of larger public, the individual right even assuming there is one, has to yield to the larger public interest in the instant case, the right of the petitioner to access his property is not affected - His property is not utilized for constructing the foot over bridge - Property of the petitioner is having connectivity from two roads - No law recognizes that owner of the property facing the main road can always have access to the road with entire frontage and such frontage cannot be curtailed by whatever means - If this contention is taken to logical end foot over bridges flyovers metro rail network cannot be constructed as construction of these infrastructure facilities would certainly have an impact on the private properties abutting the public roads - Respondents cannot be held as not being informed by any reason whatsoever and capricious thereby offending Article of the Constitution of India. It is not the case of the petitioner that no foot over bridge is required. On the contrary, he would fairly submit that such foot over bridge is required on account of traffic flow on this stretch of the road - He would only submit that it should not be located in front of his property - For the reasons already discussed, this contention has no merit - It is appropriate to note that no mala fides are attributed to any of the Officers of the respondent corporation - Court do not see any error in the decision arrived at by the competent authority in identifying the location for establishing - Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The petitioner owns property in Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, with access to both the main road and a 40-foot byline road. The petitioner claims that the construction of a foot over bridge (FOB) in front of his property obstructs access and diminishes the property's value due to reduced frontage (!) (!) .
-
The petitioner argues that the decision to locate the FOB in front of his property was made without proper notice, consultation, or obtaining his consent, which violates principles of procedural fairness and due process (!) (!) (!) .
-
The petitioner contends that alternative locations for the FOB, such as nearby government land, were available but not considered, and that a scientific or detailed study was not undertaken to justify the chosen site (!) (!) (!) .
-
The respondents justify the FOB's location based on a detailed study considering traffic flow, pedestrian safety, and public interest, emphasizing that the construction is necessary due to high traffic volume and safety concerns, especially for students and pedestrians (!) (!) (!) .
-
It is acknowledged that the construction of infrastructure such as FOBs involves balancing individual property rights against larger public interests. When a decision is for the public benefit, individual rights may be curtailed, provided the decision is made through a reasonable, rational process (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court recognizes that the location of the FOB was determined after comprehensive consideration of various factors, including traffic studies and alternative sites, and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasizes that the scope of judicial review in such administrative decisions is limited to examining legality, rationality, procedural propriety, and whether the decision was made following a proper process. It is not the court’s role to substitute its judgment for that of the decision-maker regarding technical or policy choices (!) (!) (!) .
-
The decision to construct the FOB, being in larger public interest and not affecting the petitioner’s property directly, was held to be lawful. The petitioner’s right to access his property does not extend to an absolute right to unfettered frontage, especially when infrastructure projects are necessary for public safety and traffic management (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court concluded that the petitioner’s grievances do not warrant interference with the administrative decision, and the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that the decision was informed, rational, and in accordance with principles of law (!) .
-
The case underscores the importance of procedural fairness, rational decision-making based on detailed studies, and the limited scope of judicial review in administrative infrastructure projects aimed at public welfare.
1. Petitioner claims to be the owner of property bearing plot No.22, D.No.8-2-351/1/22, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Petitioner is aggrieved by the construction of foot over bridge, opposite to his house, adjacent to the compound wall of the petitioner. According to petitioner, he had a plot of a size of 730 square yards; earlier Government took over 170 square yards of his property for widening of the road and as a result, he is left with 560 square yards of plot; this plot has access to main road as well as 40 feet byline road; has road facing frontage of 24 feet, whereas the proposed construction of foot over bridge adjacent to the compound wall of the petitioner blocks access to the main road. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Heard Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri P. Kesava Rao, learned standing counsel for GHMC for respondents 2 to 4, Sri V.V. Anil Kumar and Sri M. Karibasaiah, learned counsels for the private respondents respectively.
3.1. Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar would submit that any property owner has a right of access to the main road to the entire extent of the property and the right of frontage. This right is sought to be affected on account of decision of the respondents to construct a foot over bridge on Road No.3 of Banjara Hills in front of property of the petitioner. No such right can be taken away without following due process. The decision to construct a foot over bridge in front of property of the petitioner occupying 18 meters of frontage space on the road facing of the property thereby curtailing the access to the property only to an extent of 6 meters could not have been made without putting the petitioner on notice and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and without compensating for the loss caused to the petitioner. Road No.3 is a busy area and there are several commercial properties and there is huge demand for commercial space. However, the property will have greater value if it is having wider frontage to main road. On account of construction of foot over bridge, the value of the property would diminish. He would therefore submit that the action of the respondent authorities in constructing foot over bridge in front of property of the petitioner has adverse civil and evil consequences and whenever a decision of the authority results in evil and civil consequences, it is mandatory to follow due process of law before affecting such right. On this ground alone the entire exercise is liable to be declared as illegal.
3.2. He would further submit that no proper exercise was undertaken before identifying the location. There are several other points available on this stretch where the foot over bridge could have been located without affecting the private properties like that of the petitioner. Having come to know that the respondent corporation was proposing to establish foot over bridge on this road, petitioner volunteered to suggest various alternative points which has least inconvenience to the property owners and would be equally useful for the people to cross the road. According to him, nearer to the property of the petitioner, there is a Government land and the foot over bridge could have been located at that place. Thus, without conducting scientific study, and without regard to causing loss to the private property owner, foot over bridge in front of property of petitioner is contemplated and on this ground also the entire exercise is liable to be declared as illegal.
3.3. Petitioner being the property owner and resident of the area, it is mandatory that he ought to have been consulted and his consent ought to have been obtained before erecting the foot over bridge and without his consent, foot over bridge cannot be located adjacent to the property of the petitioner effecting the right of ingress and egress as well as right of frontage.
3.4. While broadly accepting the fact that foot over bridge on this stretch is necessary to enable crossing over the road an
