Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a notice for encroachment removal. Court directed authorities to consider petitioner's reply before proceeding with demolition.
Respondents directed to decide on encroachment matter considering petitioner's objections and communicate decision; no further action till then.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.No. 25051of 2006
01-12-2006
Between:Smt. Farzana Begum Petitioner And Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep., by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and two others.
Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.No. 25051of 2006
Oral order:
The impugned notice by the second respondent dated 22-112006 informs the petitioner that she has encroached to a width of 1’-6” on to the municipal property and that she should remove the encroachment failing which the second respondent would remove the encroachment departmentally. The petitioner sent up a reply to the said notice on 24-11-2006, addressed to the second respondent. The petitioner apprehends that without considering the representation/explanation submitted by her on 24-11-2006, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would resort to demolish the structures without any justification.
The learned standing counsel for the Corporation appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 represents on instructions that no demolition of the petitioner’s structures would be carried out by the respondents without passing an order duly considering the petitioner’s representation/explanation dated 24-11-2006 and that the order/decision taken by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 pursuant to the petitioner’s objections contained in her letter dated 24-11-2006 will be communicated to the petitioner before taking any action. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by any such decision, as would be
communicated to her as aforestated, the petitioner may pursue appropriate remedies. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take a decision on the matter pursuant to the impugned notice dated 22-11-2006 by considering the petitioner’s objections dated 24-11-2006. The respondents shall communicate the order to the petitioner by registered post acknowledgement due and till the communication of the decision shall not take further steps pursuant to the notice dated 22-11-2006. No costs.
_____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J
Dated:01-12-2006 Pvks/*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can be compelled to consider her objection submitted on 24-11-2006 before taking further action for encroachment removal.
Smt. Farzana Begum
Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad
Tank Bund, Hyderabad
two others
Goda Raghuram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
