IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19700 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt.Tangeti Bhadramma W/o.Sadalu Rao H.No.8-2-44/30 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 2 Dasireddy Kiran Kumar S/o.Dasireddy Kalkimurthy H.No.8-2-44/18 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 3 Vattikonda nageswara Rao S/o.Mallaiah H.No.8-2-44/38 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 4 Smt.Bandara Nagamma W/o.Pydiraju H.No.8-2-44/27 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 5 Pasupuleti Srinivasa Rao S/o.Sury Rao H.No.8-2-44/19 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 6 Smt.Bojja Laxmi W/o.Satyanarayana H.No.8-2-44/36 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 7 Shaik Naseema W/o.Sameemuddin H.No.8-2-44/23 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 8 Smt.Perentla Muthyalamma W/o.Govinda Rao H.No.8-2-44/25 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 9 smt.Pasupuleti Venkata Prasanna Laxmi W/o.Padmarao H.No.8-2-44/17 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 10 Madira Laxminarayana S/o.Narsaiah H.No.8-2-44/32 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 11 Badithapudi Saidulu S/o.Narsaiah H.No.8-2-44/22 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 12 Sk.Haneef S/o.Sk.Silarsh H.No.8-2-44/21 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 13 Sk.Sattar S/o.Sk.Silarsha H.No.8-2-44/11 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 14 Addanki Suryaprakash Rao S/o.Krishnamurthy H.No.8-2-44/29 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 15 Addani Veerabhadra Rao S/o.Krishnamurthy H.No.8-2-44/28 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 16 Smt.Ramisetty Venkata Laxmi Narasamma W/o.Late R.Harinadha Babu H.No.8-2-44/9 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 17 Repaka Satishkumar S/o.Subba Rao H.No.8-2-44/33 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 18 Rasool Mohiddin Ghani S/o.Rasool Mohiddin H.No.8-2-44/31 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 19 Yedlapalli Gowrishankar Dutt S/o.Ramarao H.No.8-2-44/13 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 20 Smt.Seerapu Bhadramma W/o.Pydireddy H.No.8-2-44/20 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 21 Smt.Bathula Syamala W/o.Venkanna Babu H.No.8-2-44/14 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 22 Tupakula Bhagath Babu S/o.Kondala Rao H.No.8-2-44/12 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 23 Pasupuleti Ramakrishna S/o.Govinda Rao H.No.8-2-44/16 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 24 Intur Sreenivasa Rao S/o.Abnantharamaiah H.No.8-2-44/10 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 25 Smt.Eerla Bharathi W/o.Pothuraju H.No.8-2-44/34 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 26 Smt.Kola Nagamma W/o.Ramaiah H.No.8-2-44/15 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 27 Thota Karunakar Rao S/o.Bujji Rangaiah H.No.8-2-44/35 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 28 Paluru Subba Rao S/o.Veeranna H.No.8-2-44/37 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 29 Smt.Ratnakaram Seethadevi W/o.Sreenivasa Raju H.No.8-2-44/24 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 30 Doddipatla Koti Veera nagaiah S/o.Siva Basavaiah H.No.8-2-44/26 Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Bhadrachalam Municipality, rep.by its Special Officer (R.D.O) Bhadrachalam,Khammam District 2 The Bhadrachalam Municipality, rep.by its Commissioner Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Ele.II) Departmetn, Secretariat, Hyderabad 4 The sub Collector, Bhadrachalam,Khammam District 5 The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue officer, Bhadrachalam Khammam District .....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 to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the Notice/Orders issued by the respondetn No.2 in Roc.No.E.n.c.Case No.MC./TP/119/2008 dated 5.9.2008 directing the writ petitioners for removing the constructed G.I. sheet roof sheds R.C.C.slaps tilled houses thatches houses etc, Nehru Market, Bhadrachalam of Khammam District to the extent of areas mentioned in the impugned orders is without having any power jurisdiction and authority under law and consequentially declare that the Respondents 1 and 2 have no power and authority to initiate any proceedings under AP Municipalities Act for the purpose of removal of the structures made by the writ petitioners and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.RADHA KRISHNA POLISETTY (SC FOR MPL) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITON NO. 19700 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners who are 30 in number assailing the individual notices issued to them by Bhadrachalam Municipality-2nd Respondent directing them to remove their constructions viz G.I. sheet roof sheds, R.C.C. slabs, tiled houses and thatched houses within 7 days. 2. The petitioners claim to be in occupation of extents ranging from 10 to 30 square meters. They carried on petty business at the market of Bhadrachalam prior to 1976. In the ﬁre, the entire market came to be burnt in ﬁre accident. The Grampanchayath shifted the market to the outskirts of Bhadrachalam in the year 1977. The Grampanchayath Bhadrachalam identiﬁed the place for location of the business of the petitioners. Thereupon the petitioners occupied the said sites and put up constructions to carry on their respective business. The Grampanchayath assigned door numbers to the construction put up by them and collected taxes. While so, the Grampanchayath has been upgraded as Municipality. The G.O. where under Grampanchayath has been upgraded as Municipality is the subject matter in W.P.No.14613 of 2005. It appears an interim order came to be passed in W.P.M.P.No. 18558 of 2005 on 8-8-2005 and subsequently the said interim order also came to be made absolute on 27-3-2006. While so, the respondent-Municipality issued individual notices to the petitioners on 5-9-2008 directing them to remove their constructions within 7 days. The notice issued to the petitioner No.14 reads as hereunder. “Please take notice that you have encroached upon road margin by way of RCC slabs constructed at Nehru Market measuring 15.28 square meters these encroachments causing obstruction and inconvenience to the public/traffic. Therefore, you are hereby directed to remove the casual encroachment within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice. Failing which the same will be got removed departmentally without any further notice or information. You will be liable for payment of expenses for getting the encroachment removed departmentally, under the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. This oﬃce is not responsible for any losses/damages caused in removal of encroachment. The lifting of materials will be charged upto Rs.100/- to Rs. 500/-. In case if it is not lifted within the time speciﬁed. And Rs. 100/- will be charged per day for the accumulation of debris/telas/sheds/building material till it is cleared of. Commissioner, Bhadrachalam Municipality” 3. The notices issued to the petitioners individually are under challenged in the writ petition. 4 . When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri Polishetti Radha Krishna received notice on behalf of the Respondents 1 & 2. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been in occupation of the sites identiﬁed by then Grampanchayath, Bhadrachalam and they spent substantial amounts in putting up the constructions and therefore, directing the petitioners to remove the structures within seven days without giving any opportunity to the petitioners is arbitrary and irrational. He further submits that in similar circumstances this Court in P. Raghu Kumar V. Special Oﬃcer, Municipality, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District[1] ordered to treat this notice as show cause notice and granted two weeks time for explanation. Para 13 of the cited judgment needs to be noted and it is thus:- “On an over all appreciation of the facts and circumstances this Court is of the considered opinion that though a statutory duty or obligation is cast upon the local body- Municipality to see that the road margins and the encroachments are duly removed irrespective of the fact whether such complaint was made by the 4th respondent or not, here is a case where the writ petitioners are asserting that the erstwhile Gram Panchayat had accorded some permission and the present Municipality, the successor of the erstwhile Gram Panchayat, no doubt taking a stand that such records are not available, an additional stand is taken that the writ petitioners cannot own any such properties at all in this area being non-tribals, all these questions are left upon (sic open). However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, since straightaway notices are issued for removal of the alleged encroachments in the light of the speciﬁc stand taken by the respective parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that these impugned notices to be treated as show cause notices and the writ petitioners are given two (02) weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to submit their explanations relating to these notices. It is needless to say that respondents 1 and 2, after receipt of such explanations and aﬀording opportunity to both the writ petitioners and also the 4th respondent pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks thereafter. It is also needless to say that the observations made by this Court may not weigh with respondents in taking a decision in this regard and the same to be decided on the respective contentions of the parties and the material which may be placed before the respondents 1 and 2.” 7. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent- Municipality submits that the Grampanchayath has been upgraded as Municipality constituted even before passing the status quo order in W.P.M.P.NO. 25726 of 2008. 8. Without going into the merits of the case, it is suﬃce to say that the notice issued to the petitioners individually be treated as show cause notice enabling the petitioners to submit their explanation to the 1st respondent. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit their explanation within two weeks from today to the notice served on them individually, raising all objections and thereupon the 1st respondent has to dispose of their objections in accordance with the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. 10. There shall be status quo existing as on this day till objections filed by the petitioners are disposed of. 11. The orders passed, on receipt of the objections, shall be communicated to the petitioners. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 11th September, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITON NO. 19700 OF 2008 11th September, 2008. [1] 2007(3) ALT 197