Excerpt
A single-Judge Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice D.V.S. Somayajulu gave orders on the writ petition no. 8365 of 2019 in the case of Metta Krishna Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh. This writ petition had been filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the actions of the 2nd and 6th Respondents in not taking any action on the representations submitted as illegal and arbitrary.
Facts
In this petition, the Petitioner claimed to be the owner of a property purchased in the year 2014. The nearby property was purchased by Respondent no. 7 (Sampathirao Surya Raju) and 8th (G. Bapiraju) in 2016 and had encroached onto 12 feet of land on the southern side of the Petitioner’s property. The constructions made by the Respondents were also illegal and without any plan. The representations made before the police to take action against the Respondents were also ignored. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Court seeking to direct the Respondents to take into consideration the representations submitted.
Arguments Advanced
Learned government pleader for Gram Panchayat submitted before the Court that in the counter affidavit it was clearly mentioned that the building had been made without approval by the 7th Respondent. The notice for the same was also issued to him to stop the construction and was directed to give an explanation. The notice had also been issued for removing the encroachment from the Petitioner’s property. Further, he added that the police were also directed to remove the encroachment and stop the illegal construction.
The 7th Respondent submitted before the Court that the application for sanction of the building was not given within the stipulated time period, so it was deemed to be approved. No land was encroached on and that the writ petition was misconceived. So, the petition should be disposed of.
Court’s Analysis
The Court after hearing both the counsels came upon the analysis that illegal construction was made by the 7th Respondent and notice for the same was also issued. The application on which the Respondent relied was an application for approval of the plan and did not include any proof for payment of fee etc. to show that the plan was validly submitted. The rejection notice was also issued to the 7th Respondent on 19.07.2019 which clearly proved that the plan was rejected. Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent had illegally constructed the building and had also encroached on the land of the Petitioner.
Court’s Order
The Court directed 1st to 5th Respondents to take immediate actions to remove the illegal construction and as far as encroachment was concerned, the 4th Respondent was directed to get the properties surveyed with the available records. If the encroachment was made on a public road then the 2nd and 4th Respondents are directed to remove the encroachments. The Court directed that the entire survey should be completed within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the orders.
Click here to view the judgment.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
