Municipal Commissioner's Satisfaction For Alteration Of Street Is Paramount, Private Owner's Consent Not Relevant: AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that under Section 392 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, which restrains formation of any private street without the permission of the Municipal Commissioner, the consent of a private street owner who opposes alterations in the street has no relevance.In this regard, a Justice Nyapathy Vijay, in his order said:“The Section 392...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that under Section 392 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, which restrains formation of any private street without the permission of the Municipal Commissioner, the consent of a private street owner who opposes alterations in the street has no relevance.
In this regard, a Justice Nyapathy Vijay, in his order said:
“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.”
Background
The Court was dealing with a writ petition praying to declare the action of Greater Hyderabad's Municipal Commissioner (Respondent 2) in not removing the illegal land encroachments of the road as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner and Respondent 3-8 namely–Kondunuri Anjalamma, Bussa Mariyamma, Karumanchi Mohan Rao, Karumanchi Kalavathi, Paladugu Chitemma, Chegudi Babu Rao, were residents of 4th Lane, A.T. Agraharam, Bandla Bazar, Venkatakrishna Colony, Guntur (the Lane), the width of which was 6 feet wide from western side to eastern side.
The residents of the Lane had conducted a meeting in which they had agreed to remove the encroachments on the Lane for laying a new road and had also submitted a representation to the Town Planning Department. The petitioner had given a setback of 6 feet for extension of width of the road. However, the un-official respondents without leaving any setback had encroached into the road. Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith other residents, had 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 representation to the District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, explaining the grievance, who then passed orders in on 10.07.2023 as there was no mutual agreement between the parties. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.
The petitioner had submitted photographs disclosing the narrowness of the Lane, which was wide enough to just provide sufficient space for an auto to enter.
The Municipal Commissioner submitted a report highlighting that the Lane was not included in the approved master plan of Guntur Municipal Corporation and that no settlement could be arrived at by all the 20 property owners. Additionally, it was submitted that pursuant to the directions of the District Legal Services Authority, 10 out of 14 residents on both sides had submitted acceptance letters 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. After the survey was conducted and the Encroachment Sketch was prepared, 8 residents out of 14 agreed on cooperating with the Municipal Corporation for formation of wide public passage and construction of drains, however, Respondents 3 to 8, showed stiff resistance, on the grounds that the Lane in question was a private lane and the said Respondents cannot be declared as encroachers to the same.
At the outset, the court perused Section 392 of the Act which restrains formation of any private street without permission of the Commissioner. It noted that, “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 thus held that the satisfaction of the Commissioner is paramount in making alteration to the Lane in question and the consent of the private owner assumes no relevance in such instances.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court passed the following directions- (i) the Commissioner of the Guntur Municipal Corporation was to obtain a report with respect to the width of the Lane within two weeks, (ii) the Commissioner shall then, on the basis of the report, issue a show cause notice to the concerned Respondents who were opposing the street alteration within two weeks from the date of receipt of the report, and (iii) the Commissioner shall then pass appropriate orders and take further action within a further period of four weeks.
Case Details:
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.2946 of 2024
Case Title: Seelam Atma Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Date: 09.05.2025