Disposed

B.K.Sharma Cloth Merchant, v. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Telangana HC5 Mar 2007WP/4294/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner tenant challenged demolition of premises by Municipal Corporation without notice. Court held statutory authority must follow due process and direct respondents to issue notice to the tenant under sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, relying on a Division Bench precedent that landlord consent does not supersede tenant rights.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents 1 and 2 to issue notice to the petitioner/tenant for acquisition proceedings under Section 146 or Section 147 of the Act.

B.K.Sharma Cloth Merchant, Vs The Commissioner, Municipal… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No :4294 of 2007

¶3

DATED:05-03-2007

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

B.K.Sharma Cloth Merchant, Rep., by its Proprietor, Business at 21-2-527, Charkaman, Hyderabad.

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Office at Tank Bund, Hyderabad & 2 others.

¶9

.....RESPONDENTS

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶12

2. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the proposed action of the respondents 1 and 2 to demolish the premises under the occupation of the petitioner forming part of Municipal No.21-2527, situated at Charkaman, Hyderabad, in collusion with the 3^rd respondent without notice to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the tenant in respect of the premises bearing No.21-2-527 situated at Charkaman, Hyderabad and he has been paying the rents regularly to the landlord-3^rd respondent. Whileso, respondents 1 and 2 have taken up the road widening programme to widen the road leading from Gulzar house to Motigalli, and at the consent of the 3^rd respondent the respondents 1 and 2 are acquiring the said property for the purpose of road widening without issuing notice to the petitioner which results in eviction of the said premises in the course of demolition of the said premises for the purpose of widening of the road. It is stated that even the tenant is also entitled for notice of acquisition proceedings of road

¶14

widening either under section 146 or by way of compulsory acquisition under Section 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) in the absence of any agreement.

¶15

4. It is further stated that a Division Bench of this Court in USHODAYA PUBLICATIONS, EENADU COMPLEX v. COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATILON OF

¶16

HYDERABAD AND ANOTHE R^[1] held at paragraph No.10 as follows:

¶17

“the 1^st respondent is a statutory authority. Its right to take possession of the land, therefore, must be exercised within the four corners of the statute. It is one thing to say that the provisions laid down under the said Act for acquiring the land are not required to be taken recourse to as the owner thereof has granted consent but the same would not mean that the lessee’s consent need not be taken. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the said consent granted by the owner would not be binding upon the lessee and in that view of the matter the 1^st respondent had no right to take forcible possession of the land in question, relying on the purported consent obtained by it from the petitioner’s lessor without taking recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as thereby the petitioner shall be deprived of its own valuable right”.

¶18

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue notice to the petitioner/tenant in respect of the acquisition

¶19

proceedings for acquiring the said property of the petitioner either under Section 146 or under Section 147 of the Act. No order as to costs.

¶20

_________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J

¶21

05^th March, 2007. Note: Issue operative portion of the order By wire at party’s costs. B/o Tsy

¶22

[1] 2001(2) ALT 662 (F.B.)

B.K.Sharma Cloth Merchant, v. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.K.Sharma Cloth Merchant, v. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaishnavi Industries, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District, Vs The Collector (Civil Supplies)

Puli Ranga Reddy Vs Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A. Unit

C.Kishore Kumar Vs The Government of Andhra pradesh. rep.by its

M/s. Suresh Enterprises, Karimnagar, Vs The District Collector ( Civil Supplies )

M/s.Mahesh Kumar and Co., Karimnagar represented byits Vs The District Collector (Civil Supplies)

M/s.Circar Oils Corporation, rep. by its Prop Vs The Authorized Officer, SBI Industrial Estate Branch