THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.17727 of 2008 Between:
1. Mandarapu Savithramma and another PETITIONERS AND The Bhadrachalam Municipality, Rep. by its Municipal Commissioner & Special Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.
RESPONDENT ORDER:
This writ petition was filed challenging the action of the respondent in issuing notice dated 4.08.2008 in R.O.C.No.Encroachment/168/2007 communicated on 11.08.2008 to the petitioners 1 and 2 for removing the R.C.C. roof slab to an extent of 19 X 6’.7” + 3’.6½” equivalent to 10’.6” sq. yards situated at Ramalayam Street, Bhadrachalam Municipality without conducting enquiry and without passing any order.
2. The petitioners’ family own and possess house site measuring an extent of 311 sq. yards consisting of a tiled house situated within the Gramkantam of Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District. The said site was originally acquired by the father of the petitioners under registered sale deed dated 15.05.1947 and thus they have been in actual possession of the said land. During the road widening, out of the total extent, major extent has been lost and the petitioners are left with only an extent of 10.06 sq. yards with measurements 19 x 6.7” + 3.6½”. The petitioners constructed a shop with RCC slab and doing business of selling Coconuts etc.. On 8.08.2007, on the instructions of the Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam, the Mandal Surveyor, Bhadrachalam has measured the property and submitted a report stating that the said property is within the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 15.05.1947. While so, the respondent issued notice dated 4.08.2007 in R.O.C.No.Encroachment/168/2007 describing the possession of the petitioners as an encroachment over the subject property and directed them to remove the same. The same was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.No.19970 of 2007. Thereafter, the said notice was withdrawn on 25.10.2007 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 26.10.2007. Again another notice was issued on 10.07.2008 asking the petitioners to appear for enquiry together with the relevant documents. The petitioners appeared and submitted their explanation on 15.05.2008 along with the report submitted by the Mandal Surveyor. After the said enquiry, the impugned notice dated 4.08.2008 was issued stating that the petitioners encroached upon the road margin and causing obstruction and inconvenience to the public. The same was challenged on ground that the respondent did not conduct any enquiry either on 18.07.2008 or subsequently thereafter. Hence the impugned notice is bad in law.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after passing of the order by the Special Officer-cum- Commissioner, Bhadrachalam Municipality, the Badrachalam Municipality ceased to exist and the Bhadrachalam Gram Panchayt is having jurisdiction in the matter.
4. In the circumstances, the earlier orders passed by the first respondent are nonest in the eye of law and it is left to the Gram Panchayat to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the encroachers.
5. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J.
10th December, 2014 Js.