Mohd. Jameel Ahmed Khan, S/o Late Mohammed Khaleel v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.

Telangana HC4 Jul 2008WP/13894/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging illegal demolition of properties for road widening. The Court held that since acquisition proceedings were initiated for a defined extent, no grievance existed for the unnotified land, directing the Respondents to follow due process for any further land requirements.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Corporation to follow the due process of law in case any further extents of land owned by petitioners are required for road widening.

Mohd. Jameel Ahmed Khan, S/o Late Mohammed… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13894 of 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

1 Mohd. Jameel Ahmed Khan, S/o Late Mohammed Khaleel Anmed Khan, 2 Mohd. Jaleel Ahmed Khan, S/o Late Mohammed Khaleel Anmed Khan, 3 Mohd. Sohail Ahmed Khan, S/o Late Mohammed Khaleel Anmed Khan 4 Mohd. Shakeel Ahmed Khan S/o Late Mohammed Khaleel Anmed Khan

¶7

5 Sara Khan D/o Late Mohammed Khaleel Anmed Khan 6 Seema Tabassum, W/o Mohd. Jameel Ahmed Ahmed Khan 7 Sarwath Jahan W/o Mohd. Jaleel Ahmed Khan 8 Shameem Farzana W/o Mohd. Sohail Ahmed Khan 9 Atiya Khan W/o Mohd. Shakeel Ahmed Khan 10 Abida Shakeela W/o Mohd. Musafa, (All are R/o H. No. 16-2-16, Opp: ACP Office, Saidabad, Hyderabad) ..... PETITIONERS

¶8

AND

¶9

1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. rep by it sCommissioner, Having Head Office at Tank Bund Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. rep by its Spl. Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition, 6th Floor, Municipal Complex, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

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 more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents on demolition of structures of Property bearing Municipal No. 16-2-12, 13, 14, 15, 15/1 to 15/5, 15/5/1, 15A, B,C,D & 16 admeasuring about 476.10 sq. yards effected in road widening situated at Saidabad, Hyderabad and the respondents has no right to take possession of the land without following the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the threat of demolition on 30-05-2008 as being arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and issue such other Writ or order or directions as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.B.V.V.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following :

¶13

O R D E R:

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are ten in number, with a prayer to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents-Corporation in demolishing the structures of the property bearing Municipal No.16-2-12, 13, 14, 15, 15/1 to 15/5, 15/5/1, 15A, B, C, D & 16, admeasuring about 476.10 sq. yards, effected in road widening, situated at Saidabad, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

When the writ petition came up for consideration, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation, on instructions, submits that the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated to acquire the land of 126.89 sq. yards and notification in Form-VII is also issued and that the respondents-Corporation are not contemplating to acquire any further land for the present, except the extents already notified.

¶16

When the respondents-Corporation are proceeding for acquisition of 126.89 sq. yards in accordance with the provisions of law, there cannot be any grievance for the petitioners.

¶17

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondents-Corporation to follow the due process of law in the event of any further extents of land owned by the petitioners are required in road widening at Saidabad, Hyderabad. No costs.

¶18

_____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶19

Date:04^th July, 2008. cs

¶20

..... REGISTRAR

¶21

// TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER

¶22

To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies

¶23

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}

Mohd. Jameel Ahmed Khan, S/o Late Mohammed Khaleel v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Jameel Ahmed Khan, S/o Late Mohammed Khaleel v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birender Kumar Vs The Government of India, Ministry of Defence

Penumatsa Venkata Ramakrishnamraju Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

G. Sanjeev Kumar, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Nizmabad

Nagapuri Komaraiah Vs The General Manager, Mandamarri Area

Master Medishetty Balakrishna Vs Tandur Municipal Corporation

Pothokatla Pacs Ltd., Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation