Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2477
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. SUJATHA, J
thota kasi visweswara rao – Appellant
Versus
the state of ap – Respondent
WP 34706/2022
1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY; 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV; 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP); 3. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP)
The court ruled that the land in question is government poramboku land, thus neither party has rightful ownership, and directed respondents not to interfere with possession until the civil dispute is resolved.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Petition filed seeking to prevent demolition of a buffalo cattle shed without due process - Petitioner claims ownership of the property, while the 4th respondent disputes this and has filed a civil suit - Court finds that the land in question is government poramboku land, thus neither party has rightful ownership - Respondents directed not to interfere with possession until the civil dispute is resolved. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Civil Dispute - Status quo order in pending civil suit - Court emphasizes that official respondents are not parties to the suit and may act in accordance with law. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner constructed a buffalo cattle shed on disputed land, claiming ownership, while the 4th respondent asserts ownership and has initiated legal proceedings for removal of the shed. The 2nd respondent issued a notice for demolition citing unauthorized construction.
Findings of Court:
The land is determined to be government poramboku land, indicating no ownership by either party.
Issues: The main issues include the legality of the demolition notice and the rightful ownership of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents cannot interfere with possession until the civil dispute is resolved, highlighting the importance of due process and the status quo order.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of.
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent 1 to 4 in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment and trying to demolish the buffalo cattle shed situated in R.S.No.43 of Ramalingeswara Nagar with in the area of Vijayawada Municipality Corporation, without following due process of law and in making efforts to dispossess the petitioner there from, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19(1), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to refrain from doing so…”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the property situated in R.S.No.43 of Ramalingeswara Nagar, where he has constructed a shed with asbestos sheets for buffalo cattle. The 4th respondent, claiming ownership of the property, has filed O.S.No.98 of 2021 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, duly enclosing I.A.No.691 of 2022 seeking mandatory injunction for the removal of structures existing in the said property. Wherein, the said Court directed the parties to maintain status quo until further orders.
4. But in the meanwhile, the 4th respondent having political influence with an intention to dispossess the petitioner from the said property has approached the 3rd respondent and consequently the 3rd respondent issued a notice vide R.C.No.G6-113868/2022, dt.13.10.2022 to the petitioner directing him to remove the shed stating that it was constructed without obtaining any plan from GVMC.
5. It is also the case of the petitioner that the staff of the 3rd respondent under the directions of the 4th respondent, visited the said property and openly proclaimed their intention to demolish the structure belonging to the petitioner, despite the order of status quo in O.S.No.691 of 2022. Challenging the said action, the present writ petition has been filed.
6. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter, wherein it is stated that the petitioner along with one Thota Ramesh has jointly erected shed in R.S.No.43 without obtaining permission from the 2nd respondent. As per Section 428 & 429 of A.P.M.C. Act, 1955, prior to erecting shed, they shall furnish drawings and plans along with the documents related to prove their right of title and ownership of the property and shall obtain an approved plan for the construction of the shed in the site. But however, the petitioner failed to furnish the relevant documentary proof and also failed to obtain any permission from the respondent authorities. On identifying the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner as well as the said Thota Ramesh, the 2nd respondent issued statutory notice dt.01.08.2022 under Section 452(1) of A.P.M.C. Act, 1955 demanding the petitioner to furnish the title rights over the said property and drawings of the construction and also to stop the construction and remove the structures erected by them. There upon, the petitioner along with the said Thota Ramesh has submitted a representation dt.17.08.2022 informing that they have erected thatched huts for rearing cattle 25 years ago and due to floods the thatched huts were flown away. Thereafter, while they were erecting thatched houses, the Town Planning staff removed the huts and issued notice on 01.08.2022 and also stated that MRO has given possession certificate to them and accordingly they have erected temporary huts for eking out their livelihood and they did not constructed permanent structures in that place and requested the 2nd respondent to permit them to raise thatched huts for rearing cattle. But however, they have failed to produce the possession certificate issued by the MRO
