T S DEVAKARANAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of these Writ Petitions being the same, they can be disposed of by a Common Order.

(2.) The first Writ Petition i.e. W.P. No. 16179/99 is filed questioning the Notice No. 10, dt. 16-6-1999 and endorsement G8/13299/99, dt. 21-6-1999 wherein the request of the petitioners for construction of a pucca building in an extent of 1020 sq. yards in Sy. No. 97/2 in premises bearing No. 2-9-456 of Vaddepally village, Hanmakonda Mandal, Warangal District was negatived on the ground that the proposed construction is affecting the Master Plan of the year 1971 wherein a road was proposed to be laid over the land in question. It is further stated in the above notice that the unauthorised constructions that are proposed to be made by the petitioners affecting the Master Plan will be viewed seriously and the required proceedings under law will be initiated for prevention and removal of structure (not covered under the decree) which will affect the Master Plan. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondents cannot high-handedly take possession of their land without following the due procedure of law i.e., putting the provisions of Land Acquisition Act in motion. Subsequently, the Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal issued Show Cause Notice No. C1/808/PP, dt. 7-9-1999 to show cause as to why the construction made by the petitioners over the land in question unauthorisedly shall not be demolished. Having submitted the explanation, apprehending that the Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal may pass final orders directing demolition of the construction, W. P. No. 19616/99 is filed by contending that as the respondents failed to pass any orders within the time stipulated, it is deemed that the building plan was approved by the respondents and they cannot resort to any demolition on the ground that it is an unauthorised construction.

(3.) It should be noticed that while the 1st petitioner is a retired Teacher, her husband i.e., 2nd petitioner is an Ex-Military Personnel and they are expected to know the law of the land and they cannot plead ignorance of law. Now, let me examine to what extent they have complied with the legal provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules made thereunder before commencement of construction by invoking the deeming clause.