HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22146 of 2004 Date : 07.10.2009 Between : Dr.Vegesina Pedda Subba Raju. …..Petitioner And The District Collector, West Godavari District & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22146 of 2004 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not initiating steps for acquisition of his land in the premises bearing Door Nos.12-2-19 and 12-2-19/1, which was taken possession for the purpose of road widening, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents to pay compensation for the land taken from him and also for the structures that are demolished. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of buildings bearing Nos.12-2-19 and 12-2-19/1, situated in the Municipal limits of Narsapur Municipality. It is submitted that in part of the said buildings, he is running a Clinic and the remaining portions are in occupation of tenants. It is stated that on the Southern side of the buildings, there is an existing Municipal road, and for the purpose of widening the said road, a meeting was convened by the respondents with the owners of the premises, which are going to be affected in such road widening. In the said meeting, though it was agreed to part with the land to the extent of 3.5 feet, but the respondents have made markings beyond 3.5 feet and demolished the structures high- handedly. Precisely, it is the case of the petitioner that though there was no consent for demolition of structures beyond 3.5 feet, but they are removed illegally and arbitrarily, as such, he is entitled for compensation for the affected portion of land and also for the structures removed by the respondents. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the Commissioner of Narsapur Municipality. In the counter affidavit, while admitting that the petitioner is the owner of the buildings bearing Nos.12-2-19 and 12-2-19/1, and there was a proposal to widen the road existing on the Southern side of said buildings, it is stated that markings were made on the required portions and a meeting was convened. It is stated that the petitioner has also attended the meeting along with other persons whose properties were affected in the road widening and agreed to cooperate with the respondents. It is further stated that the owners and occupants of the premises themselves have removed the affected portions voluntarily. Stating that for the same cause, earlier also, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.8374 of 2003 and further filing a contempt case in C.C.No.216 of 2004, it is stated that the said contempt case was dismissed. Further, stating that as the respondents have not demolished the buildings of the petitioner or any part of his constructions, they are not liable for payment of any compensation. 4. Head learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Municipality. 5. A copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8374 of 2003 is made available in the material papers. Even in the said writ petition, the petitioner has sought for directions for payment of compensation on account of loss caused to him due to demolition of structures. The said writ petition was disposed of, following directions of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.Lakshmana Rao V. Executive Officer[1]. In the above said case, directions were issued to the effect that in case where demolition of private property has already been made, the authorities should determine the compensation on account of damages suffered by the owners of the buildings. When the petitioner has filed contempt case in C.C.No.216 of 2004, the same was also not admitted, but however, further observations were made that if any portion of the petitioner’s building is utilized for the purpose of road widening, the Municipality shall initiate steps for acquiring such portion of land. Though in this writ petition again, similar contentions were raised, stating that though he has given consent to part with the land and structures only to the extent of 3.5 feet, but markings were made beyond 3.5 feet and structures were removed illegally, but in the counter affidavit filed by the Municipal Commissioner, it is categorically stated that they have not removed any structures and pursuant to markings made by them, the petitioner himself has removed the structures to the extent of affected portions. In that view of the matter, there is a dispute with regard to removal of structures, as alleged by the petitioner. Even according to the petitioner, he has given consent for removal of structures to the extent of 3.5 feet for the purpose of road widening. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit that the respondents have not taken any steps for removal of the structures, it is not possible for this Court to record any finding on the serious factual disputes raised by the petitioner. More over, similar such identical questions also fell for consideration in the earlier writ petition being W.P.No.8374 of 2003, and the petitioner cannot agitate the same question again for payment of compensation, in view of dismissal of the contempt case. The earlier orders will operate as res judicata and the petitioner cannot claim the same relief, which is the subject matter of the earlier writ petition. In any event, having regard to the serious factual disputes, which arise for consideration, no directions can be issued for payment of compensation as claimed by the petitioner, in view of the stand taken by the respondents that they did not demolish any structures belonging to the petitioner. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, it is open to the petitioner to pursue any other remedy available under law. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th October 2009 ajr [1] 2000 (5) ALT 246