Andhra Pradesh High Court: Satisfaction Of Municipal Commissioner Necessary For Alteration Of Street, Consent Of Private Street Owner Irrelevant

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that it is necessary to obtain satisfaction of the Municipal Commissioner in terms of Section 392 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act for alteration of street, while the consent of the private street owner is irrelevant.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking a declaration that the action of the Municipal Corporation in not removing the illegal land encroachments of the road by private party respondents was illegal and arbitrary.

The Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay held, "The Section 392 ensures that streets formed align with the connecting roads in the city and ensures organised city development. The wording “to the satisfaction of Commissioner” in Section 392(2) reflects the wide amplitude of power of the Commissioner to make alterations in the street in question. The consent of private street owner is of no relevance for exercise of power under this Section."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Bhaskar Prem Koushik, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate K H V Siva Kumar.

Facts of the Case

The Writ Petitioner and the residents of 4th Lane, A.T. Agraharam, Bandla Bazar, Venkatakrishna Colony, Guntur conducted a meeting agreeing to remove the encroachments for laying a new road and submitted a representation to the Town Planning Department to that effect. The width of the existing road is 6 feet wide from western side to eastern side, and the Petitioner had given a setback of 6 feet for extension of width of the road. However, the unofficial Respondents, without leaving any setback, had encroached into the road. The Petitioner and other residents approached the 31st Ward Corporator of Guntur Municipal Corporation requesting to examine the inconvenience caused due to the narrowness of the lane and also made a representation to the District Legal Services Authority Guntur explaining the grievance regarding the road and the District Legal Services Authority passed orders as there was no mutual agreement between the parties.

It was stated that pursuant to the directions of the District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, 10 residents out of 14 residents on both sides have submitted acceptance letter agreeing to survey and demarcation of the road for raising existing road to CC road by the Corporation and also accepted for formation of 12 feet wide road and for construction of drains on both sides of the road after removing the encroachments. Pursuant thereto, a survey was conducted by the Municipal authorities, encroachments were identified, and a sketch was prepared identifying the encroachments.

After preparation of the Encroachment Sketch, 8 out of 14 residents in that locality expressed their willingness to cooperate with the Municipal Corporation for formation of wide public passage and construction of drains by the Municipal Corporation. However, the private party Respondent had shown stiff resistance to removing encroachments.

The private party Respondent also filed their Counter Affidavit stating that the road in question disputing the correctness primarily contending that the street is a private street and that they cannot be declared as encroachers in the absence of any decree of Civil Court and that they claim the area to be within the Sale Deeds standing in their favour.

Reasoning By Court

The Court, at the outset, noted that Section 392(1) of the Act restrains formation of any private street without permission of the Commissioner.

"In the event, the private street is laid with prior permission in that event, the Commissioner has power under Section 392(2) to issue show cause and alter the street to his satisfaction at the expense of residents of the street," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly disposed of with direction to the Municipal Commissioner to perform his duty in terms of the Act.

Cause Title: Seelam Atma Rao vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Bhaskar Prem Koushik

Respondent- Advocate K H V Siva Kumar, Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporations, A S C Bose, Government Pleader, Municipal Administration and Urban Development

Click here to read/ download Order