Disposed

Sri Reddy Sangaiah, v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC2 Jul 2008WP/9424/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a demolition notice under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. The court, noting the petitioner's failure to submit title documents, directed him to produce them and an approved plan within four weeks. If he fails to comply, the demolition notice remains valid. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit title documents and approved plan within four weeks; failure to comply renders the demolition notice valid.

Sri Reddy Sangaiah, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9424 of 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

Sri Reddy Sangaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. 1-7-459/9, Dayara Market, Zamistanpur, Hyderabad.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

¶10

2 The Assistant City Planner, Circle-III, G.H.M.C., Abids, Hyderabad.

¶11

3 Smt. K.Mamatha, W/o. K.Anilkumar, R/o. 1-7-496/12, Dayara Market, Zamistnpur, Hyderabad.

¶12

.....RESPONDENTS

¶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 or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the notice dt.23.04.2008 issued by 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the direct the respondents or their subordinate staff not to demolish the structures of the petitioner in H.NO.1-7-495/9, Plot No.,8 situated at Dayara market, Zamistanpur, Hyderabad.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6

¶16

The Court made the following :

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This writ petition has been filed by Sri Reddy Sangaiah assailing

¶19

the notice issued to him under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, whereunder he has been directed to pull down/remove the unauthorized constructions/encroachments within twenty-four hours from the date of receipt of the notice.

¶20

2. Petitioner is the owner of premises bearing No.1-7-495/9, Dayara Market, Zamistanpur, Hyderabad, having purchased the same from United Co-operative Housing Society, on 31.01.1979. He constructed a house and the same came to be assessed by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. He has been paying the property tax since 1981. According to the petitioner, K.Anilkumar, husband of Smt.K.Mamatha-3^rd respondent, instigated the authorities of the respondents 1 and 2- Corporation to issue the notice impugned in the writ petition. It is his further case that he made a complaint against Smt.K.Mamatha w/o. K.Anilkumar-3^rd respondent on 24.10.2007 stating that she encroached the road portion. Thereupon, the respondents 1 and 2-Corporation initiated proceedings against Smt.K.Mamtha-3^rd respondent, who filed W.P.No.27067 of 2007 and obtained interim orders on 04.01.2007.

¶21

3. When the writ petition came up for admission on 25.04.2008, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2- Corporation took time for obtaining instructions and on that day, interim stay of demolition came to be granted. 3^rd respondent entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. She also moved vacate stay petition. When the vacate stay petition coming up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the parties consented for disposal of the main writ petition itself.

¶22

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2-Corporation and learned counsel appearing for the vacate stay petitioner-3^rd respondent.

¶23

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the notice issued under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, is so vague and that it did not contain any particulars with regard to the encroachment made by the petitioner.

¶24

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2- Corporation submits that the petitioner did not furnish his title documents to verify whether the construction made by him is within the site purchased by him from United Co-operative Housing Society or not.

¶25

7. A fact remains that the petitioner has not furnished the title documents to the respondents 1 and 2-Corporation despite notice being issued to him. Since the petitioner has already constructed a house, according to him, in the year 1981, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit his title documents and other documents such as approved plan to the respondents 1 and 2-Corporation so as to verify whether the constructions are made within the site owned by him or not. The petitioner shall complete this exercise within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Thereupon, the respondents 1 and 2-Corporation shall decide as to what extent the petitioner encroached the road margin and take necessary steps for removal of the structures made by the petitioner on the encroached portion. If the petitioner fails to comply the direction given by this Court, the notice issued by the respondents 1 and 2-Corporation under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 shall hold good.

¶26

8. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs.

¶27

Date:02^nd July, 2008. cs

¶28

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies

¶33

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}

Sri Reddy Sangaiah, v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Reddy Sangaiah, v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. Chandraiah Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its

Sri Shiridi Sainath Education Society, Vs The National Council For Teacher Education

Lalit Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Shankar Lal Gupta, Vs Municipal Corportion of Hyderabad, rep by Commissioner

Smt. D.Jaya Vs G.H.M.C

A. Prabhavathi Vs The Competent Office, Rep. by its Executive Engineer,Aphb.

Rajee Harsh Andee, Vs The Medical Council of India, Pocket-14, Sector 8