HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10482 OF 2014 Date: 21.08.2014 Between :
Vurti Rajamani W/o. late V.Nageswara Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occu:Housewife, R.o.H.No.53/16/89/1, Automotive Bank side Maddinapalem, Visakhapatnam and others.
… Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10482 OF 2014 ORDER:
This writ petition is instituted alleging that the officers of the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties of the petitioners in Sy.No.3/1A of Chinna Waltair Village, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District and the same is illegal.
2. It is averred in para-4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that to their surprise and shock, the officers of VUDA are trying to construct compound wall in the sites of the petitioners claiming that property belongs to VUDA and with a great difficulty, they have prevented from undertaking such construction. Immediately, when they went to the office of VUDA to enquire about the status of the land, they were given letter dated 16.01.2014, which would disclose that the land in Sy.No.3/2A was acquired by VUDA under award No.2/1981 dated 23.02.1981. Another letter dated 14.12.2009 would disclose that VUDA has not acquired the land in Sy.No.3/1A of China Waltari village.
3. Based on the averments in counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the VUDA (2nd respondent), Sri P.Rajasekhar submits that the land in Sy.No.3/2A of China Waltair village was acquired as early as on 23.02.1981. After acquisition of the land, possession was taken and VUDA has constructed compound wall surrounding the land acquired by them. It is further asserted that VUDA has not acquired the land in Sy.No.3/1A of China Waltair village.
4. The averments made in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent would disclose that this writ petition is instituted only on an apprehension and without any cause. It is clear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent that no such attempt was made by the 2nd respondent to occupy the land alleged to be belonging to the petitioners. Counter-affidavit also discloses that that the land, which the petitioners claimed to be their property, comes under the coastal regulation zone. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent submits that the coastal regulation zone authorities are necessary and proper parties to the writ petition. If at all coastal regulation zone authorities are claiming the land, it is for them to answer the grievance of the petitioners and not for the VUDA and VUDA is un-necessarily brought into picture and wrong claim is made.
5. Except for relying on the letter of VUDA dated 16.01.2014 and the earlier letter dated 14.12.2009 and the photographs showing the compound wall already constructed by the VUDA on the landing Sy.No.3/2A, which belongs to VUDA, there is no other material filed to show that there has been unauthorized encroachment by VUDA on the property owned by the petitioners. There is no cause for institution of this writ petition. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 21.08.2014 kkm Oval:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Writ Petition No.10482 OF 2014 Date: 21-08-2014 kkm