In a writ petition challenging the alleged collusion of official respondents with private individuals in demolishing petitioner's property, the High Court dismissed the petition for vagueness and lack of public law element.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10259 of 2009
Between:
Syed Dilawar Mehdi S/o. Late Syed Mahmood R/o. 1-3-145/B, Khan Mohalla, Zaheerabad, Medak District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in collusion with the respondents 4 and 5 for demolishing part of the house bearing No. 1-3-145/B (new), Khan Mohalla, Zaheerabad, Medak District without issuing notice is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and also in violation of A.P. Municipality Act 1965 and also in violation of principles of natural justice and Art. 14 and 21 of the Constituion of India. Consequently to restrain the respondents 4 and 5 from demolishing the said dwelling house.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.ARUN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: .
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.No. 10259 of 2009
16-07-2009
Oral Order:
The writ petition is misconceived and is also vague. It is pleaded that the premises bearing No. 1-3-145/B (new), Old No.
3-3-95 forming part of Daira-e-Mehdaviya, Khan Mohalla, Zaheerabad, Medak District, is a wakf property in respect of which the 4th respondent executed a rental deed in favour of the petitioner’s father on 05-06-1992. The father of the petitioner passed away in 2008. The petitioner claims to be the legal heir and to be continuing as tenant of the premises, paying the rents to the Mutwalli, apart from paying electricity, water and property tax. In paragraph Nos. 3 to 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is breezily pleaded that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being very influential, the official respondents are colluding with them and that ‘the respondents” partly demolished the petitioner’s house on 13-05-2009. When respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were requested by the petitioner to take action against the unofficial respondents, they failed to do so. The petitioner apprehends threat of further aggression and demolition by the respondents. In paragraph No.5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is alleged that the petitioner’s representation dated 13-05-2009 was not being considered and the official respondents “are still actively supporting the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and are violating the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipality Act, 1965 and Rules and the representation may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.”
The pleadings either taken in isolation or in conjunction do not plead any overt or specific conduct on the part of the official respondents which may be characterized as unlawful conduct. In the absence of specific allegations, of the
unlawful conduct by the official respondents, the substantive grievance of the petitioner appears to be unlawful interference by the non-official respondents with the petitioner’s property, a grievance which cannot be presented under Article 226 of the Constitution as it has no public law element warranting adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies in the private law domain. No costs.
____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 16-07-2009 Pvks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for alleged unlawful interference by non-official respondents with his property.
Whether the writ petition discloses any specific unlawful conduct on the part of the official respondents warranting adjudication under Article 226.
Syed Dilawar Mehdi
The A.P. Wakf Board
The Station House Officer P.S. Zaheerabad
The Zaheerabad Municipality
Syed Mahmood
Syed Afzal Mehdi
Goda Raghuram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
