HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11245 of 2010 DATED: 21.04.2014 Between:
Abdul Saleem Khan & others ... Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Hyderabad and another … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11245 of 2010 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioners are the owners and possessors of houses bearing Nos.4-1-508 (old) 4-1-547(new), 4-1-546 (old) 4-1-625 (new), 4-1-508 (old) 4-1-547 (new), 4-1-549 (old) 4-1-631 (new), 4-1-559 (old) 4-1-631 (new) respectively, Aneesa Nagar, Bodhan, Nizamabad district. So far as the petitioners 3 to 5 are concerned, the properties were acquired and constructed by their fathers and in a family partition, the properties fell to their shares. The petitioners 1 and 2 and fathers of petitioners 3 to 5 were working as employees on daily wage basis in Nizam Sugar Factory and with the permission of the Nizam Sugar Factory authorities, they have constructed residential houses on the side of the railway track more than 30 to 40 years back. The 2nd respondent also assigned house numbers. After sale of the Nizam Sugar Factory, the railway track was removed and many ryots have started cultivating various types of crops after removal of the tracks. The road which is in existence from Shakkarnagar to Jallapalli, is also known as Bogie line, was being utilised by the residents of the colonies in that area. The 2nd respondent wanted to widen the road from 30 ft. to 66 ft. for which purpose, a survey was conducted and made certain markings on the properties of the petitioners and when no notice was issued to the petitioners, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The petitioners also state that in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in WP No.26400 of 1997, which was reported in 2000(5) ALT 246, laid down certain guidelines for acquiring the properties for the public purpose. In spite of the same, the respondents are trying to demolish the properties of the petitioners, without following due process of law.
3. Though no counter-affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent states that if the property of the petitioners is acquired, they would follow the procedure in accordance with law only.
4. In view of the statement made by the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent, the respondents are directed to follow due process of law, if they want to acquire the properties of the petitioners for public purpose and till such time, the possession of the petitioners in respect of the houses, shall not be disturbed.
5. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 21.04.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 1 WRIT PETITION No.11245 of 2010 Date: 21.04.2014 BSS