HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4107 of 2010 DATE: 06.06.2014 Between:
Shaik Shakeela Begum ... Petitioner And Municipal Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation Kadapa City and District … Respondent The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4107 of 2010 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is the owner of the house bearing D.No.21/369 situated in Veeraswamy Mandi Street, Kadapa city, having acquired the same under a registered gift deed dated 22.12.2007, which is in residential area. For the purpose of road widening, the respondent marked the red arrow markings on the walls in conformity with the neighbouring houses and the petitioner states that there is no grievance as it is in alignment with the neighbouring houses on either side. But one week prior to filing of the writ petition, the employees of the respondent came and informed that ABCD marked portion in the street survey map has to be demolished and when the petitioner insisted for a notice in writing for that extent, the respondent did not serve any notice. Though the petitioner and her husband approached the office of the respondent, there was no response and apprehending forcible demolition, the present writ petition was filed.
3. The respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner has encroached on to the road margin to an extent of 10 ft x 7.6 ft. and the encroachment portion of the building has to be removed by the petitioner so as to widen the road. The respondent orally informed the petitioner to remove the encroachment portion of the building while marking the building in red colour. The Corporation has given sufficient time to remove the encroachment portion to widen the road and to facility free flow of traffic and in spite of the same, the petitioner approached this Court by misrepresentation. Those encroached portion of the building is in an extent of 76 sq. ft. and the Corporation took a decision for removing the encroachments in view of traffic point of view.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on street survey map and submits that ABCD portion is much below the road margin and it cannot be called as encroached area. The document of title in her favour clearly shows that the land on which the building was constructed was a private land and not the Government land. But there is no averment with regard to the extent of land owned by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The petitioner has also not filed copy of the sale deed. In any event, the dispute of the title cannot be decided in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. It is the case of the respondent that an extent 76 sq. ft. was encroached by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner is given liberty to submit a representation to the respondent enclosing a copy of the sale deed and the extent of land occupied by the building in order to buttress her contention that no portion of the government land was occupied by the petitioner and if any encroachment is there, the petitioner shall take steps for removal of the encroachment on her own. The respondent shall consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon and thereafter only take steps for removal of encroachment, if the petitioner does not remove the encroachment on or own.
6. 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: 06.06.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 9 WRIT PETITION No.4107 of 2010 Date: 06.06.2014 BSS