THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.30933 of 2023

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in highhandedly and forcibly demolishing 3” feet balcony of the petitioner’s house property bearing No.4-5-22 situated at Sai Baba Temple Road, Mahabubabad Town, Mahabubabad District, and further threatening to demolish the structures forcibly and dispossessing the petitioner from the said property without following due process of law and also without acquiring the land under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘Act 30 of 2013’), if the same is required for the purpose of road widening from Nehru Center to Pathipaka, as being illegal, arbitrary, and against to Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also against the principles of natural justice, with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent not to remove the structures and dispossess the petitioner from the above said property without following due process of law.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department appearing for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2, and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, and with their consent the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

3. Petitioner contends that he is the owner of subject property bearing House No.4-5-22, admeasuring 72.88 sq. yards situated at Sai Baba Temple Road, Mahabubabad Town, Mahabubabad District, having acquired the same from his father through Settlement Deed bearing document No.3675 of 1999, dt.19.11.1999; that at the relevant point of time, Mahabubabad was a Gram Panchayat; that by obtaining permission from the Grampanchayath vide File No.A3/2408/99, dt.25.09.2001, he had constructed a residential building in the land possessed by him; and that the said property has been assessed to tax by the concerned authorities all through this period.

4. Petitioner further contends that while he is the owner and possessor of the said property under the guise of road widening from Nehru Center to Pathipaka, the respondents-authorities have resorted to demolition of 3” feet balcony of the petitioner’s house without issuing any prior notice; and that on the contrary called upon the petitioner to vacate the subject property and handover the same within (7) days, failing which further action would be taken.

5. It is further contended by the petitioner that since the day the property was settled in his favour by his father in the year 1999, where he made construction by obtaining permission in the year 2001, there has been no claim whatsoever against the said property; and that all of a sudden the respondents- authorities without any basis, are claiming that the said property was constructed by the petitioner by encroaching on to the road margin.

6. Petitioner further contends that earlier, the subject place at which he had constructed a house, was under the jurisdiction of Grampanchayath, and the authorities after causing verification had granted building permission and therefore, it is not open for the respondents-authorities to allege that the petitioner had encroached on to the road margin or that he has no title to the property.

7. Petitioner further contends that if the authorities intended to widen the road, they are required to follow due process of law by acquiring the land and building of the petitioner; and that resorting to demolition in an illegal and high-handed manner, by merely alleging the petitioner to be an encroacher, is a colorable exercise of powers conferred on the said authority under the Act.

8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that before demolishing the 3”