Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Annam Nagulu – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 31042 of 2022
Decided On : 23-09-2022
MUNICIPALITIES ACT - ENCROACHMENT - EVICTION - PUBLIC LAND - ALTERNATIVE SITE - PROCEDURE - Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation - RATIO DECIDENDI - PUBLIC PURPOSE - FOOTPATHS - PAVEMENTS - PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW - ARTICLE 21 - ARTICLE 19(1)(e) - BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - SECTIONS 312, 313, 314 - A.P. MUNICIPALITIES ACT - PROCEDURE - NATURAL JUSTICE - PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE - RAIL OVER BRIDGE - LEVEL CROSSING - WRIT JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 226 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION - NO ORDER AS TO COSTS:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, alleged encroachers on public land, challenged the Municipal Commissioner's order directing them to vacate the encroached land. They argued that the order was illegal, violated their constitutional rights, and failed to provide an alternative site before eviction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners had encroached upon public land and that the Municipal Commissioner had followed due process in issuing the eviction order. The Court also held that the petitioners were not entitled to an alternative site before eviction as a matter of right, but that the Municipality had provided them with an opportunity to apply for an alternative site under various government schemes.
Issues: 1. Whether the Municipal Commissioner's order directing the petitioners to vacate the encroached land was illegal and violative of their constitutional rights. 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to an alternative site before eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Municipal Commissioner had the authority to issue the eviction order and that the order was not illegal. The Court also held that the petitioners' constitutional rights were not violated as they had been given an opportunity to be heard and to submit their objections to the eviction order. 2. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to an alternative site before eviction as a matter of right. However, the Court noted that the Municipality had provided the petitioners with an opportunity to apply for an alternative site under various government schemes.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Municipal Commissioner's order was valid and that the petitioners were not entitled to an alternative site before eviction.
JUDGMENT
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. - Heard Sri K. Raja Shekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Corporation for respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.2 and Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for 3rd respondent.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-
"....to issue an appropriate writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the order in Roc.No.1105/2022/G1, dtd. 8/9/2022 in so far as directing the petitioners to vacate from their respective houses is concerned, is illegal, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioner's from their houses bearing Door Nos.17/3/165/3, 17/3/165/2, 16/8/25, 17/3/165/36, 17/3/165/35, 17/3/165/34, 17-3-8/3 and 17/3/165/2 respectively, situated in Ward No.4 in T.S.No.1628 of Narasaraopet Town, Palnadu District till finalization of the allotment of house sites and pass such other order or orders..."
3. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order in Roc.No.1105/2022/G1, dtd. 8/9/2022 passed by the Municipal Commissioner of the 3rd respondent Municipality, Narasaraopet Town, Palnadu District, against the petitioners directing them to vacate from the encroached land situated in Ward No.4 in T.S.No.1628 of Narasaraopet Town, Palnadu District.
4. Initially one Sri Shaik Sharath filed W.P.No.4213 of 2019 on the allegations that he was the owner and possessor of the property to certain extent situated in T.S.No.908, Chintada Village, Guntur District. He obtained building permission, but some persons encroached part of his land as also some part of the public land by raising huts thereon for which he submitted representations to the Municipal Authorities for removal of the encroachment but no action was taken.
5. W.P.No.4213 of 2019 was disposed of on 8/4/2019 by this Court directing the Municipality concerned to take appropriate action for removal of the encroachments in accordance with law preferably within the specified period.
6. Operative part of order dtd. 8/4/2019 in W.P.No.4213 of 2019 is as under:
"...Considering the submission made by the learned standing counsel, this Court felt it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action for removal of encroachments in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs."
7. The Municipality issued notice dtd. 24/4/2021 to the petitioners directing for their eviction against which the petitioners filed W.P.No.9277 of 2021, which was allowed on 29/4/2021, setting aside the notice dtd. 24/4/2021, but providing that the respondents therein were at liberty to issue show cause notice in the first instance to the petitioners calling for their explanation and after receiving the explanation to consider the same with a pragmatic approach in the light of the earlier pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the point of landless and houseless poor persons and to pass a reasoned order accordingly. The petitioners were granted liberty to submit their explanation to the show cause notice.
8. The operative part of order dtd. 29/4/2021 in W.P.No.9277 of 2021 is reproduced as under:
"..Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned notices dtd. 24/4/2021 issued to the petitioners. However, the respondents are at liberty to issue show cause notice in the first instance to the petitioners calling for their explanation as to why they should not be evicted from the lands which are alleged to have been encro
The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not absolute and can be restricted by a procedure established by law.
Eviction proceedings initiated under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act in urban areas are without jurisdiction; the Odisha Public Premises Act governs such matters.
Possession receipts do not confer title over land; lawful eviction requires adherence to statutory procedures.
The court ruled that unlawful encroachers cannot claim rights under slum rehabilitation laws, reinforcing the supremacy of environmental protections and legal accountability.
Courts will not protect claimants who engage in unlawful property transactions, emphasizing the rule of law and public interest over individual gains.
Once the land vested with the government, the petitioners' claim to restrain the respondents from dispossessing them could not arise. Additionally, the court held that the petitioners' claim for comp....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
