Dismissed

Syed Akbar Hussaini v. the Commissioner

Telangana HC12 Oct 2004WP/16559/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging demolition of petitioner's house without notice. Court directed Municipal Corporation to issue a show cause notice, provide opportunity for explanation, and only then demolish unauthorized structures, while allowing petitioner to submit plans for sanction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to issue show cause notice and provide opportunity for explanation before demolishing unauthorized structures.

Syed Akbar Hussaini Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 16559 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Syed Akbar Hussaini S/o. Late Syed Ahmed Hussaini R/o. H.No. 20-5-164, Kasipura, Hyderabad.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Office at Tank Bund, Hyd.

¶12

.....RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to Issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent and his subordinate as illegal and unconstitutional in trying to demolish the petitioner's property House bearing No.20-5-164, admeasuring 62.37 sq.yards equivalent to 52.14 s. qmts situated at Khazipura Hyderabad bounded on North by H.No. 20-5-166 & Road, South Passage & 20-5-164/A, East: H.No. 20-5-167, West: Lane, without issuing prior notice as per the H.M.C. Act and pass.

¶14

For the Petitioner:MR.NAZIR AHMED KHAN

¶15

For the Respondent.: MR.G.RAMA RAO, Standing Counsel for MCH

¶16

The Court made the following :

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

¶19

The petitioner claiming to be the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.20-5164, admeasuring 62.37 sq.yards equivalent to 52.14 sq.mts situate at Kazipura, Hyderabad having obtained the same under registered gift deed dt. 27-12-2003 filed the present writ petition stating that he made some construction over an extent of 62.37 sq.yards by way of renovation and officials of the respondent-Corporation without issuing any notice and without following due procedure, damaged the property by demolishing a part of the house.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.423 Municipal Administration dt. 31-7-1998 a person who is having house less than 100 sq.mtrs, permission is not required under Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) and in view of the same, construction made by the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal and the Municipal authorities cannot demolish the same without issuing any show cause notice.

¶21

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, on instructions, submits that petitioner has to submit plan and can proceed with the construction, which do not require

¶22

any sanction. He further submits that respondent will follow due procedure as contemplated under the Act while removing the unauthorized constructions ie., projection towards the road etc., if any.

¶23

In view of the same, the respondent has to issue necessary show cause notice specifying the construction so made is contrary to the building laws and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to offer his explanation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and till passing the such final orders the officials of the respondentCorporation shall not demolish the structures made by the petitioner. It is always open for the petitioner to submit necessary plan as per G.O.Ms.No.423 and can obtain sanction for the construction so made thereon. If any such application is filed seeking permission, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within three weeks from the date of receipt of such application.

¶24

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

12-10-2004

kmr

1. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Office at Tank Bund, Hyd.

¶29

2.2CD copies

Syed Akbar Hussaini v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Akbar Hussaini v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y. Ankineedu Prasad, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Vinod Kumar Kedia, Vs The District Collector

Ramadas Telaganeedi Aided Upper Primary School, Vs District Educational Officer

Adari Adinarayana, Vs The Additional Agent to the Government

K. Praveen Kumar, Vs The Commissioner

M.Srinivasa Rao, Vs The District Collector