Allowed

Hashim Ali v. Govt of Ap., rep.by its Secretary,Municipal Administration

Telangana HC11 Jun 2009WA/761/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed a writ appeal modifying a previous order. It directed the competent authority to hear objections raised by all interested parties, including respondents 3 to 9 of the underlying writ petition, before passing orders under Section 3(2) of the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal allowed; order of learned single Judge modified directing competent authority to hear objections of all parties under Section 3(2) of the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1

Hashim Ali Vs Govt of Ap., rep.by its Secretary,Municipal… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶2

PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI &

¶3

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶4

WRIT APPEAL NO : 761 of 2009

¶5

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/12/2008 in WP NO : 35368 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.)

¶6

Between: 1 Hashim Ali S/o.Mazhar Ali R/o.H.No.16-5-390,Khidiki Bood Ali, Shah Road Dabirpura, Hyderabad 2 Smt.Hussaini Bee W/o.Basheeruddin R/o.H.No.16-5-390,Khidiki Bood Ali, Shah Road Dabirpura, Hyderabad 3 Ghousuddin S/o.Bhuranuddin R/o.H.No.16-5-390,Khidiki Bood Ali, Shah Road Dabirpura, Hyderabad 4 Smt.Hussaini Bee W/o.Bikku R/o.H.No.16-5-390,Khidiki Bood Ali, Shah Road Dabirpura, Hyderabad 5 Moinuddin S/o.Abdul Rahim R/o.H.No.16-5-390,Khidiki Bood Ali, Shah Road Dabirpura, Hyderabad 6 Sabir Ali S/o.Behram Ali R/o.H.No.16-5-390,Khidiki Bood Ali, Shah Road Dabirpura, Hyderabad 7 Maqbool Mia S/o.Mohd.Shabuddin R/o.H.No.16-5-390,Khidiki Bood Ali, Shah Road Dabirpura, Hyderabad

¶7

APPELLANT(S)

¶8

AND

¶9

1 Govt of AP., rep.by its Secretary,Municipal Administration Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner ,Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Tank Bund,Hyderabad 3 Mohd.Maqbool S/o.Mohd.Kareemullah

¶10

R/o.H.No.16-5-366, Dareecha Bood Ali Shan Hyderabad 4 Mohd.Anwar S/o.Mohd.Kareemullah

¶11

R/o.H.No.16-5-366, Dareecha Bood Ali Shan Hyderabad 5 Mohd.Siraj S/o.Mohd.Kareemullah

¶12

R/o.H.No.16-5-366, Dareecha Bood Ali Shan Hyderabad 6 Mohd.Sajid S/o.Mohd.Kareemullah

¶13

R/o.H.No.16-5-366, Dareecha Bood Ali Shan Hyderabad

¶14

7 Smt.Razia Bee D/o.Mohd.kareemullah

¶15

R/o.H.No.16-5-366, Dareecha Bood Ali Shan Hyderabad

¶16

8 Smt.Khursheed Bee D/o.Mohd.Kareemullah

¶17

R/o.H.No.16-5-366, Dareecha Bood Ali Shan Hyderabad

¶18

9 Smt.Nazia Bee D/o.Modh.Kareemullah

¶19

R/o.H.No.16-5-366, Dareecha Bood Ali Shan Hyderabad

¶20

10 Smt.Ghousia Bee Alias Pyareebee W/o.Mohd.Kareemullah

¶21

R/o.H.No.16-5-366, Dareecha Bood Ali Shah Hyderabad 11 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad

¶22

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶23

Counsel for the AppellantS: SRI SRINIVAS EMANI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV.

¶25

The Court made the following :

¶26

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶27

WRIT APPEAL NO : 761 of 2009

¶28

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶29

The appellants in this appeal are respondents 3 to 9 in WP No.35368 of 1998. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 5.12.2008 directing the competent authority under the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’) to consider the objections raised by the writ petitioners and pass fresh orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶30

The grievance of the writ petitioners was that upon receipt of the notice under Section 3 (2) Proviso of the said Act, they submitted their objections but the same were not considered on merits. As the learned single Judge did not grant a similar direction in favour of respondents 3 to 9 in the writ petition, they moved a separate application in WPMP No.37193 of 2008 in WP No.35368 of 1998 seeking consideration of their objections also. However, the learned single Judge by order dated 29.12.2008 dismissed the said application holding that respondents 3 to 9 in the writ petition are not entitled to be issued notices under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the orders

¶31

passed in the writ petition and in the miscellaneous application, respondents 3 to 9 in the writ petition are in appeal before us.

¶32

Having considered the matter and having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side, we are of the opinion that as the writ petitioners and respondents 3 to 9 in the writ petition assert rights and interest in the subject land, the competent authority under the Act should hear the objections raised by both sides and pass necessary orders under the Proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act.

¶33

The order of the learned single Judge in the writ petition No.35368 of 1998 is accordingly modified to the extent that there shall be a direction to the competent authority under the Act to consider the objections raised by the writ petitioners as well as respondents 3 to 9 in the writ petition (present appellants) in response to the Section 3 (2) notices and pass fresh orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The competent authority shall issue notices to all the parties concerned and thereafter pass reasoned orders.

¶34

The writ appeal is accordingly allowed modifying the order of the learned single Judge to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

_________________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari

¶36

____________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar

¶37

Date: 11^th June, 2009 Gurc/nn.

¶38

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶39

WRIT APPEAL NO : 761 of 2009

¶40

(Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶41

11/06/2009

Hashim Ali v. Govt of Ap., rep.by its Secretary,Municipal Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hashim Ali v. Govt of Ap., rep.by its Secretary,Municipal Administration

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

Suresh B. Bapna Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

The Regional Manager (Mktg.), Vs M.Kesavaiah

Government of A.P. rep. by The Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Vs Ravi Benarjee

M.Laxmamma Vs Kiran Kumar REddy

P.Tirumala Reddy Vs The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh

The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Vs B. Venkateswarlu