M/s. Sri Balaji Minerals V. State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case Title: M/s. Sri Balaji Minerals V. State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ninala Jayasurya

 Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.29718 of 2015

Date: 28.03.2024

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Surepalli Madhava Rao

Advocate for the Respondent: Smt. A. Jayanthi Mr. S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar

Brief facts:

The factual matrix of the case is that an application was made by the Petitioner to the 4th Respondent for the allotment of the land with the purpose of setting up a manufacturing unit for Pulverising Non-Metallic Minerals and then, the land was also allotted. The 4th Respondent performed the registered transaction and was given possession of the land.

 As per clauses 7 and 8 of the sale deed, the subject land allotted to the petitioner is free from all encumbrances or charges or obligations, etc. Furthermore, the 8th Respondent encroached into the said plot, and a compound wall was constructed. The petitioner requested multiple times from the authorities to have the aforementioned encroachment removed.

The 8th Respondent issued notices to the Petitioner advising the Petitioner to proceed legally on the encroachment. The present writ petitioner is filed in order to remove the said encroachment.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The Petitioner submitted that the construction of the factory was not as per the layout and the request was made to remove the encroachment, however, no action was initiated due to which the Petitioner issued the legal notice to the 4th Respondent, then, the 4th respondent called upon the 8th respondent to remove the encroachments, which are highly objectionable. Furthermore, it was argued that the authorities had a duty to take action against the aforementioned Respondents.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The Respondent argued that allocations made prior to 2012 are exempt from the Regulations. Furthermore, it was argued that the corporation had no duty or obligation to take any action once the Petitioner was granted control of the aforementioned land.

Observations of the Court:

Whether the intrusion occurs on land that belongs to the petitioner or any other allottee is immaterial, the Honourable Court noted.

The concerned Manager should have acted to remove the encroachment as soon as it was discovered that the 8th respondent had encroached beyond its allotted area.

It was furthermore observed that no material was placed on record which shows that any request was made by the 8th Respondent seeking allotment of the land. It was the wilful encroachment by the 8th Respondent.

The court noted that the mere fact that the authorities framed the Regulations would be rendered useless if they stood by and let the encroachments continue without taking any concrete measures to counter them.

Taking these factors into account, the court ordered respondents 3 and 4 to remove the 8th respondent’s land encroachments in accordance with Clause 23 of the Regulations 2012 against the 8th respondent.

The decision of the court:

With the above direction, the court allowed the writ petition.