HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.528 of 2008 Date : 23.06.2011 Between : Mohd. Moin. …..Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.528 of 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in demolishing three mulgies bearing Municipal Number 8-2- 44/1, situated at Khajaguda in Karmanghat village of Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary, with consequential directions to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring 80 sq. yards in the premises bearing No.8-2-44/1 in Sy.No.140, Ward No.8, Block No.2 of Khajaguda, with a further direction to award a sum of Rs.15 lakhs towards damages in the form of compensation. As averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the land admeasuring 80 sq. yards in Sy.No.140, Ward No.8, Block No.2, situated at Khajaguda in Karmanghat village of Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from its erstwhile owner by name Sri Shafi Ali Khan, by way of a registered sale deed bearing document No.1442/02, dated 17.02.2005. It is stated that the vendor of the petitioner has purchased the said land from its earlier owner by name Mohd. Faheemuddin. It is stated that the petitioner has constructed three mulgies on the aforesaid piece of land, which are assessed to property tax with house No.8-2- 44/1. It is the case of the petitioner that on 14.12.2007, when the staff from the office of 2nd respondent came to demolish the house, he got issued notice, dated 15.12.2007, but inspite of the same, respondents have illegally demolished his mulgies by using JCB machinery on 05.01.2008 at 11 a.m. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the action on the part of respondents in demolishing the structures is illegal and arbitrary and is in violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Precisely, it is the case of the petitioner that the property covered by Sy.No.140 is private property, as such, the structures existing therein should not have been demolished for the purpose of road widening, in the absence of his consent and acquisition as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Separate counter affidavits are filed by respondents 5 and 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent, stating that the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) is being impleaded in the writ petition without making any specific allegations, the 6th respondent has denied the allegation of demolition. In the detailed counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, it is stated that the HUDA, in order to form a ring road from Hyderabad-Vijayawada NH-9, to join the old Kurnool road near Santhoshnagar, has made a requisition to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, for acquisition of land in Bhairamalguda, Karmanghat and Jillelguda villages of Hayatnagar Taluk in Ranga Reddy District. It is stated that in response to the said request made by HUDA, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy has issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, for acquisition of land admeasuring Ac.43.02 gts., for formation of ring road from Hyderabad- Vijayawada NH-9, to join the old Kurnool road near Santhoshnagar. Apart from this, a further extent of Ac.7.21 gts. is also acquired by issuing notification, dated 24.12.1983, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, for the purpose of formation of ring road. It is stated that the acquisition has been made in Sy.Nos.141 and 142/1, and the land in Sy.No.140 has not been acquired. In the counter affidavit, it is specifically pleaded that in view of the orders, dated 16.01.2007, passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, sanctioning an amount of Rs.4,100 lakhs for widening of inner ring road and 8 lane carriage way with service roads, for completing the same on or before 16th of March 2008, respondents have taken up road widening works by removing the encroachments. In the counter affidavit, it is clearly stated that in Sy.No.142/1, the petitioner and others have illegally raised temporary sheds with mud walls, which were removed on 5th of January 2008, for laying 8 lane carriage way. It is submitted that the entire ring road is not touching the land in Sy.No.140 at any point, and as the petitioner has encroached on the road margins and raised illegal structures in Sy.No.142/1, the same were removed. Reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner, disputing the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent. Heard Sri P.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, learned Government Pleader for Transport and Roads and Buildings, appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the land in question is covered by Sy.No.140, and that he has purchased the same from its earlier owner by way of a registered sale deed, whereas, it is the specific case of respondents that no road widening works were taken up in the land covered by Sy.No.140 and that the portions of land required for the purpose of road widening, were acquired only from Sy.Nos.141 and 142/1. It is clearly stated in the counter affidavit that the removed structures were in Sy.No.142/1, which were illegally raised by the petitioner and others with temporary sheds and mud walls. Along with the writ petition, photographs were also filed, which were taken on 5th of January 2008. Prima facie, from the photographs also, it is clear that the structures, which are claimed by the petitioner, are temporary structures raised by using tin sheets. Although it is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the structures that were removed, were in Sy.No.140 only, but in view of the averments made by the respondents in the counter affidavit that they have not touched the structures in Sy.No.140 and that the removed structures were in the encroached portions of Sy.No.142/1, it is not possible to resolve such dispute in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the stand taken by respondents in the counter affidavit that the removed structures are not covered by Sy.No.140, and that the structures that were demolished, were in the encroached portions in Sy.No.142/1, I do not find any ground for grant of relief as prayed for. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if any claim is made by the petitioner before appropriate Civil Court, the same shall be decided independently, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd June 2011 ajr