IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11949 of 2008 Between: 1 A. Sridhar S/o. A. Venkata Rao R/o. Neelima Ashiwad Towers, Bharat Nagar Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. 2 A.P. Raja Rao S/o,. Suryanarayana R/o. Neelima Ashiwad Towers, Bharat Nagar Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. 3 M. Kishore S/o. Sambasiva Rao R/o. Neelima Ashiwad Towers, Bharat Nagar Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. 4 S. Jagadish S/o. S. Venkata Rao R/o. Neelima Ashiwad Towers, Bharat Nagar Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. 5 Mulakalapalli Appa Rao S/o. Late Appa Rao R/o. Neelima Ashiwad Towers, Bharat Nagar Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. 6 K. Venkata Suabrahmanya Sarma S/o. Late Laxminarayana R/o. Neelima Ashiwad Towers, Bharat Nagar Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. 7 Chada Kedarnath S/o. SIvarama Sastry R/o. Neelima Ashiwad Towers, Bharat Nagar Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. 8 Satujoda Gopalaksrishna S/o. Late Madhusudhan Rao R/o. Neelima Ashiwad Towers, Bharat Nagar Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. 9 Jagana Suryanarayana S/o. Late Pakeeru Naidu R/o. Neelima Ashiwad Towers, Bharat Nagar Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. 10 Chada R.S. Sarma S/o. Late Naresimha Murthy R/o. Neelima Ashiwad Towers, Bharat Nagar Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. 11 Devender Kumar Gogia S/o. Late Suraj Prakash Gogia R/o. Neelima Ashiwad Towers, Bharat Nagar Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. 12 S.H.L. Kanta Rao S/o.Late S.B. Hunmnaji Rao R/o. Neelima Ashiwad Towers, Bharat Nagar Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. 13 B. Daniel Babu S/o. Asirwadam R/o. Neelima Ashiwad Towers, Bharat Nagar Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. 14 K. Sivalinga Prasad S/o. SUryanarayana R/o. 58-17-1-, Buitchiraju Palem, Visakhapatnam. 15 I. Jaiprasad S/o. Venkata Ramana R/o. 32-2-8/1, Bowdara Road Visakhapatnam. 16 G. Nageshwer Rao S/o. Late Seetha Ramaiah R/o. 26-15-57 Main Road, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Aseelmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam. 2 APEPDCL, Corporate Office, P & T Colony,. Seethammadara, Near Gurudwara Junction, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Chief General Manager. O & CS .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proposed action of the 1st Respondent to close public street in Layout Plan-36/69 without reference to the convenience of general public and residents of the locality and further action to provide certain civic amenities to the illegal occupants to justify the proposed action, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of Sec 374 of The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, and Section 15 A.P. Urban Area Development Act and consequently set aside the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent in notice R.C.No. 8456/07/ACP-VI dt. 11-12-07 as illegal, and arbitrary and further direct the 1st Respondent to remove the illegal, occupation in 30 feet road in Layout Plan No. 36/69 in Bharath Nagar Colony, Butchiraju Palem, Visakhapatnam and be pleased to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAVINDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 11949 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners who are 16 in number assailing the action of the respondents in closing the public street shown in lay out Plan No.36/69 without following the provision of Section 374 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, and Section 15 of A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. 2. Petitioners 1 to 13 claim to be owners of plot Nos. 76 and 77, petitioner No. 14 claims to be the owner of plot NO. 79, petitioner No.15 claims to be the owner of plot No. 78 in Survey No.13/1, A-2 of Buchiraju palem village, petitioner No.16 claims to be the owner of the one plot in Survey No. 11 of Butchiraju Palem village. Survey No.11 is situated on the southern side of the plots of the petitioners 1 to 15. As per the lay out plan, 30 feet road exists in between plots 76-77 and 78-79. The said 30 feet road is proposed to extend into the layout in Sy.No.11 and it connects 80 feet road on the north. Based on the sanctioned lay out, the petitioners 1 to 13 got the apartment complex constructed in Plot Nos. 76 and 77 and petitioner No.14 constructed residential house in Plot NO. 79 after obtaining necessary permissions from the 1st Respondent Corporation. During the year 2003, certain persons occupied a part of 80 feet road situated on the northern side of plots owned by the petitioners. In spite of their complaint, the 1st respondent failed to remove the encroachments. As a result of such occupation, access to plot No. 78 owned by petitioners No. 15 is totally affected. Petitioner No.13 submitted number of representations to the 1st respondent. 1st respondent made endorsement on the representations directing the City Planner to remove the encroachments. While so, the Commissioner of the 1st respondent Corporation initiated proceedings under Section 374 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act to close 30 feet road. Petitioner No.13 submitted number of representations to the1st respondent Corporation. Their being no action on the representations the petitioners approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Notice before admission came to be order of status quo was has been granted with regard to the grant of power connection to the illegal occupants of 30 feet road in Bharath Nagar Colony, Buchiraju Palem vide W.P.M.P.No.15392 of 2008. 1st Respondent filed counter affidavit. 4. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the objections ﬁled by the Petitioners with regard to closure of the Street are yet to be considered by the 1st Respondent Corporation. Para-9 of the counter affidavit reads as hereunder: “The Respondent Corporation. In this respect this Respondent Corporation humbly submitted that as per Section 374 Proviso of the H.M.C. Act the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation such sanction shall not be given unless one month atleast before the meeting at which the matter decided, a notice signed by the Commissioner has been put in the street or part of street which it is proposed to close, informing the residents of that locality for the said proposal not until the objections to said proposal if any made in writing at any time before the said meeting have been received and considered by the Corporation in the present case this Respondent Corporation followed the procedure laid down as mentioned above and to that eﬀect this Corporation made a notiﬁcation on 12-12-2007 for inviting the objections and in the result this Corporation received objections only from the residents of Neelima Aashirvad Towers and the said subject matter should be placed before counsel of the Municipal Corporation for ﬁnal decision. It is respectfully submitted the counsel meeting of the respondent Corporation is not held from February, 2008, as such the subject matter is not placed before the Council for final decision”. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the respondents are not prevented from making further amenities to the illegal occupants, it amounts to allowing premium mission to the illegal occupants. 7. Indisputably the objection have been called for from the residents of the locality with regard to the closure of 30 feet wide road as provided under Section 374 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. It is a matter of record that the petitioners submitted their objections and their objections are to be considered by the corporation under section 374 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act as is made applicable by Section 7 of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Act, 1979 (Act, 19 of 1979). In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is stated that the objections ﬁled by the petitioners are yet to be considered by the Corporation. 8. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent Corporation to consider the objections raised by the petitioners with regard to closure of 30 feet wide road and pass appropriate orders. Till passing of the appropriate orders on the objections raised by the petitioners, the interim order granted on 12-6-2008 shall continue to be in force. _____________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 6th September, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 11949 OF 2008 6th September, 2008 3. Notice before admission has been ordered on 12-6-2008 and an order of status quo was granted with regard to the grant of power connection to the illegal occupants of 30 feet road in Bharath Nagar Colony, Buchiraju Palem vide W.P.M.P.No.15392 of 2008. 1st Respondent filed counter affidavit. 4. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the objections ﬁled by the respondents are yet to be considered by the 1st Respondent Corporation. Para-9 of the counter affidavit reads as hereunder: “The Respondent Corporation. In this respect this Respondent Corporation humbly submitted that as per Section 374 Proviso of the H.M.C. Act the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation such sanction shall not be given unless one month atleast before the meeting at which the matter decided, a notice signed by the Commissioner has been put in the street or part of street which it is proposed to close, informing the residents of that locality for the said proposal not until the objections to said proposal if any made in writing at any time before the said meeting have been received and considered by the Corporation in the present case this Respondent Corporation followed the procedure laid down as mentioned above and to that eﬀect this Corporation made a notiﬁcation on 12-12-2007 for inviting the objections and in the result this Corporation received objections only from the residents of Neelima Aashirvad Towers and the said subject matter should be placed before counsel of the Municipal Corporation for ﬁnal decision. It is respectfully submitted the counsel meeting of the respondent Corporation is not held from February, 2008, as such the subject matter is not placed before the Council for final decision”. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the respondents are not prevented from making further amenities to the illegal occupants, it amounts to granting permission to the illegal occupants. 7. Indisputably the objection have been called for from the residents of the locality with regard to the 30 feet wide road as provided under Section 374 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. It is a matter on record that the petitioners submitted their objections and their objections are to be considered by the corporation. Section 374 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act is applicable to the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. In the counter aﬃdavit, ﬁled on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is stated that the objections filed by the petitioners are yet to be considered by the Corporation. 8. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent Corporation to consider the objections raised by the petitioners with regard 30 feet wide road and pass appropriate orders. Till passing of the appropriate orders on the objections raised by the petitioners, the interim order granted on 12-6-2008 shall continue in force. _____________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 6th September, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 11949 OF 2008 6th September, 2008