Encroachments, unauthorized constructions - un authorised parking narrowing the roads, pavements & foot paths= causing inconvenience to public - PIL- ALLOWED = - PETITIONER RESPONDENT P. RAJASEKHAR, GUNTUR DIST & 3 OTHERS VS PRL SECY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, HYD & 5 OT - http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.=PIL&mno=91&year=2013

Encroachments, unauthorized constructions - un authorised parking narrowing the roads, pavements & foot paths= causing inconvenience to public - PIL- ALLOWED =
writ declaring the action of the respondents in permitting the encroachments in the pavements/cellars of the commercial complexes in Narsaraopet Municipality is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to take action against the owners and occupiers who encroached the cellars of Multi Storied building complexes and main roads including pavements, footpaths and to undertake removal of the encroachments on the main road and pavements and ensure that remedial steps are taken regularly to improve the traffic.”  =

We accordingly direct the District Collector, Guntur, the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narsaraopet and the Commissioner, Narsaraopet Municipality, respondent Nos. 2,4,5 and 6 herein, to take the following steps:
1)  The municipal authority shall identify all the un-authorized constructions, which have been made and shall take steps for demolition of such unauthorized constructions in accordance with law.  This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2)  Respondent No. 5, with the help of respondent No.6 shall take steps forthwith to see that there shall not be parking of any vehicles on either side of the road in congested areas.  There shall not be any parking of the vehicles in and around the bus stops in busy market area.
3)  There shall be suitable parking places, which must be located away from the market area or congested area and parking shall be done at a stipulated place.
4)  In relatively empty areas of the road, one side parking may be provided.  All the respondents shall ensure that there must not be any encroachments on the pavements by parking or occupation in any manner whatsoever and the pavements shall be kept free from all obstructions so that the pedestrians can pass through the pavements comfortably and safely.

The aforesaid measures shall be taken by the respondents forthwith on supply of a copy of this order.  The District Collector, Guntur shall ensure that the aforesaid directions of the Court are complied with and he shall also submit a compliance report in the matter within four weeks in the registry.
           The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly disposed of.  The interim applications, if any, pending shall also stand disposed of.  No costs.
PIL 91 / 2013

PILSR 21314 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
P. RAJASEKHAR, GUNTUR DIST & 3 OTHERS  VSPRL SECY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, HYD & 5 OT
PET.ADV. : VIDYASAGARRESP.ADV. : GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN & URBAN DEV
SUBJECT: PIL CasesDISTRICT:  GUNTUR
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
 AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C BHANU
                                                                                    

 

Public Interest Litigation No. 91 OF 2013


                                                                            
DATED:  22.7.2013
                                                                                       

Between:
P. Rajasekhar,
Narsaraopet,
Guntur District and others.
                                                          …  Petitioners
                                                                                            
And

The Government of Andhra Pradesh
represented by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Urban Development,
Hyderabad and others.

                                                          … Respondents





























THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
 AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C BHANU


Public Interest Litigation No.91 of 2013



Order: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
         
          The petitioners filed the present Public Interest Litigation, seeking the relief as follows:
     “to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in permitting the encroachments in the pavements/cellars of the commercial complexes in Narsaraopet Municipality is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to take action against the owners and occupiers who encroached the cellars of Multi Storied building complexes and main roads including pavements, footpaths and to undertake removal of the encroachments on the main road and pavements and ensure that remedial steps are taken regularly to improve the traffic.”

          It is also seen from the record that on an earlier occasion, the          1st petitioner filed a petition before the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Lok Adalat, Narsaraopet, seeking the relief as follows:
            “1)  To direct the Police, Traffic Police, RTO and DSP to take measures so that the pavements are vacated for public use, to see that the auto rickshaws are being driven by licensed drivers and to prevent the autos being driven by minors, to see that action be taken against reckless, overloading auto rickshaws and to see that cars are removed from road at Atchireddy complex area by travels and to see that roads are not used for parking the vehicles just like that and direct all the respondents to submit report to the Court once in every two months with regard to the steps taken in improving the traffic till order is completely restored in the town. 
                2)  To direct the Commissioner to take measures against owner who violate building plan and direct them to provide cellars for parking purpose by removing the shops at cellars and direct all the Departments to take steps for providing parking places starting from railway gate and direct them not to regularize the builders whose apartments are constructed by violating the approved plans. 
                 3)  Further to direct the Manager, APSRTC, Narsaraopet not to stop the buses at bridge center at Lord Siva Statue and on Palnadu Road and at 1st Railway gate and direct them to bring the Palnadu Bus stop into use which was constructed with public money and which was left unnoticed and unused and also direct the Manager, APSRTC, Narsaraopet to direct their drivers not to stop the buses either at the turnings or immediately after taking turning at the middle of the road.
                  4)  To direct the concerned to take steps and to see that people shall not gather in groups on road obstructing the traffic.”
  

          It is alleged in this Public Interest Litigation that there are unauthorized construction of the buildings and also indiscriminate and unruly parking of vehicles and thereby road space has been narrowed down to such an extent that no passer by can go through the road.  It is also clear that the buses could not ply on the roads because of parking of the vehicles and further the buses do not stop at certain stops because of illegal parking.  Photographs have also been annexed to the petition from which, it is clearly established that there has been unruly and irregular parking of vehicles on all sides of the roads and the roads have been narrowed down because of the illegal parking.  These photographs also show that the buses cannot be plied smoothly. 
The municipal authorities have also filed counter affidavit wherein it has been admitted that there has been unauthorized occupations in the cellars and there has been unauthorized and illegal parking encroaching the pavements.  Further admission has been made that unauthorized construction of buildings have been done.
  Therefore, the allegations contained in the petition are established and the remedial measures as indicated in the counter affidavit are not sufficient.  We feel that all the respondents must act jointly in order to address the problems, which have been indicated in the present petition. 
We accordingly direct the District Collector, Guntur, the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narsaraopet and the Commissioner, Narsaraopet Municipality, respondent Nos. 2,4,5 and 6 herein, to take the following steps:
1)  The municipal authority shall identify all the un-authorized constructions, which have been made and shall take steps for demolition of such unauthorized constructions in accordance with law.  This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2)  Respondent No. 5, with the help of respondent No.6 shall take steps forthwith to see that there shall not be parking of any vehicles on either side of the road in congested areas.  There shall not be any parking of the vehicles in and around the bus stops in busy market area.
3)  There shall be suitable parking places, which must be located away from the market area or congested area and parking shall be done at a stipulated place.
4)  In relatively empty areas of the road, one side parking may be provided.  All the respondents shall ensure that there must not be any encroachments on the pavements by parking or occupation in any manner whatsoever and the pavements shall be kept free from all obstructions so that the pedestrians can pass through the pavements comfortably and safely.

The aforesaid measures shall be taken by the respondents forthwith on supply of a copy of this order.  The District Collector, Guntur shall ensure that the aforesaid directions of the Court are complied with and he shall also submit a compliance report in the matter within four weeks in the registry.
           The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly disposed of.  The interim applications, if any, pending shall also stand disposed of.  No costs.



________________________
                                                                K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ




______________________
                                                                             K.C. BHANU, J         
22.07.2013

pnb



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.