The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the satisfaction of the Municipal Commissioner is the deciding factor in altering a private street, and the opposition or consent of private owners is not required under Section 392 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Act.
Justice Nyapathy Vijay clarified this in his judgment, emphasizing:
“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 of the Case
The case arose from a writ petition filed against the inaction of the Municipal Commissioner of Guntur in removing illegal encroachments on a narrow lane in Venkatakrishna Colony, Guntur. The petitioner and residents of the 4th Lane had initially agreed to remove encroachments and widen the road to 12 feet for better access. The petitioner himself had given a 6-feet setback for the same.
Despite consensus from most residents, Respondents 3 to 8 refused to cooperate and continued occupying the lane. They argued that the lane was private and they should not be treated as encroachers.
The petitioner approached local authorities, including the Ward Corporator and the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA). However, due to a lack of full consensus, no resolution was achieved. The DLSA issued orders on July 10, 2023, acknowledging the impasse.
Court’s Observations and Findings
The Court reviewed Section 392 of the GHMC Act, which prohibits forming private streets without prior approval of the Commissioner. It noted that:
“In the event, the private street is laid with prior permission, 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.”
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Allows Life Convict to Attend Son’s Wedding as Exceptional Case
Photographic evidence showed that the lane was extremely narrow—only enough for an auto-rickshaw to pass. The Municipal Commissioner’s report confirmed that this lane was not included in Guntur’s master plan. However, 10 out of 14 residents agreed to remove encroachments, allowing the road to be converted into a cement concrete (CC) road with proper drains.
Despite the majority’s support, Respondents 3 to 8 resisted the plan, citing the private nature of the lane. Still, the court reiterated that their objection did not matter in light of Section 392.
Disposing of the writ petition, the High Court directed:
The Commissioner of Guntur Municipal Corporation must obtain a report regarding the width of the Lane within two weeks.
Based on this report, a show cause notice must be issued to the opposing respondents within the following two weeks.
The Commissioner must then pass appropriate orders and proceed with further action within four more weeks.
Case Details:
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.2946 of 2024
Case Title: Seelam Atma Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
