KOLLURU GOPAL Vs. VISAKHAPATANAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Kolluru Gopal with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent-Corporation in issuing the final notification dated 14.2.2002 under Section 3 of A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (for short Act) purporting to acquire land in T.S. Nos. 266 and 270/1A Part of Market yard, Block No. 9, Periki Veedhi, Visakhapatnam as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The petitioner got additional prayer included as per the orders in WPMP No. 32026 of 2003, dated 20-1-2004. The additional relief sought for is to declare the order of the respondent-Corporation in Rc.No. 1185/89/H3/UCDP, dated 31.1.2002 rejecting the objections of the petitioner and acquiring the subject land under the provisions of the Act as illegal.

(2.) The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of an area admeasuring 1066 square yards in T.S. No. 270/1A (Part) and T.S.No. 266 (Part) of Market ward, of Block No. 9, Periki Veedhi, Visakhapatnam, having purchased the same under three registered sale deeds dated 22-2-1944, 10-3-1945 and 10-3-1951. The respondent-Corporation declared an extent of 531 square yards covered by T.S.No. 266 part and an extent of 406 yards covered by T.S.No. 270/1A as 'slum' and published a notice under Section 3(1) of the Act in Gazette dated 20.8.1990. A show-cause notice under Section 3(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner to show-cause as to why the slum area should not be acquired for its improvement. The petitioner filed objections to the show-cause notice and simultaneously filed W.P. No. 11650 of 1991 questioning the notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Act. The said writ petition ended in dismissal on 8.6.2001. He unsuccessfully filed W.A. No. 925 of 2001. He contended in the writ appeal that the provisions of the Act could not be made applicable to the respondent-Corporation in the absence of any notification extending the provisions of the Act to the respondent-Corporation. The contention came to be repelled by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ appeal. I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the order passed in the writ appeal and it is thus:

(3.) The petitioner also filed Special Leave Petition (C.No. 18770 of 2001) and the said petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 743 of 1991 on the file of m Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam against 28 hut dwellers residing in the area in question seeking permanent injunction restraining them from putting up further constructions. The said suit also ended in dismissal on 26.9.1997. The Commissioner and competent authority after perusing the connected records and documents filed by the petitioner and after inspecting the slum on 25.10.2001 passed final orders on 31.12.2002 overruling the objections raised by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.