K RAMA KRISHNA Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed challenging the resolution No. 246 dated 29-1-1998 passed by the 1st respondent proposing to give an extent of Acs. 1-50 cents comprised in T.S.No. 101 of Anakapalle to the 3rd respondent for parking the lorries. During the pendency of the writ petition the impugned resolution No. 246 was cancelled by the 1st respondent and by a Resolution No. 42(D), dated 26-5-1999, the Municipal Council decided to hand over the same land to A. P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad for the purpose of construction of 100 bed hospital. Therefore, the petitioner filed necessary application seeking amendment of the writ petition and prayer in, the writ petition. It was allowed. As of now the writ petition challenges the resolution No. 42(D), dated 26-5-1999 as one without jurisdiction, illegal and violative of the Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India in so far as the land admeasuring Acs. 0-15 cents in T.S. No. 101 is concerned.

(2.) Briefly stated facts are as follows: The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of an extent of Acs. O-15 cents out of Acs.1-84 cents. He alleges that for the last 40 years his family members are in possession and they also raised a thatched house. The Municipality or the Government were never in possession of the property for the last 40 years and therefore the petitioner acquired title by prescription. Ignoring the right of the petitioner, the 1st respondent proposed to transfer the entire land initially for the purpose of lorry stand and later for a hospital. The Municipal Council did not issue any notice to the petitioner calling upon him to file objections before taking steps to evict the petitioner. In order to, prima facie, show that he is in possession of the land, the petitioner has filed receipts issued by the 1st respondent showing payment of temporary encroachment fee. He also filed a temporary receipt for land revenue allegedly issued by Village Administrative Officer for 1988-89. He submits that he is a lawful owner of the property in question and if the Municipality seeks possession, it has to establish its title by approaching the Civil Court. Unless the title of the Municipality is established, they cannot evict the petitioner forcibly. This Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim direction on 18-1-1999 not to dispossess the petitioner from the thatched shed constructed in T.S. No. 101. This Court made it very clear that the interim direction is applicable only in case the thatched shed is existing as on the date of passing the order dated 18-1-1999.

(3.) The 2nd respondent filed application being W. V. M. P. No. 2378 of 2000 along with counter-affidavit praying to vacate the interim order dated 18-1-1999. When the W. V. M. P. is listed before me, having regard to the urgency, as the hospital construction is stalled, the learned Standing Counsel prayed for disposing of the writ petition finally. This is consented to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for final disposal.