Disposed

J.Sreeramulu v. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Telangana HC16 Jun 2009WP/15401/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a notice from the Corporation directing their immediate eviction for road widening. The court held that without an agreement under Section 146, petitioners in possession cannot be dispossessed. The writ petition was disposed of directing respondents not to evict or demolish structures, reserving right for lawful acquisition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to evict petitioners or demolish structures pursuant to the impugned notice dated 17.8.2002.

J.Sreeramulu Vs The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT

¶3

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO : 15401 of 2002

¶5

Between :

¶6

1 J.Sreeramulu S/o Balaiah, R/o H.No.3-6-307/A/1, Hyderguda, Hyderabad.

¶7

2 Syed Waheed S/o Late Syed Khaja Gulam Rasool R/o H.No.17-8-411/23, Bagh-e-Jaharz, Yakathpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS

¶8

AND

¶9

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

¶10

2 The Asst. City Planner, Circle No.III, M.C.H. Hyderabad.

¶11

3 Lanka Ramalingaiah, R/o Plot No.56, Navodaya Colony, Sagar Society.

¶12

Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i) declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in issuing letter No.959/TPS/C3/MCH/2002, dated 17.8.2002 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 14, 21 & 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently quash the same;

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV.

¶17

Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Sri N.VASUDEVA REDDY

¶18

The Court made the following :

¶19

ORDER :

¶20

In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notice, dated 17^th August 2002, issued by the 2^nd respondent in letter No.959/TPS/C3/MCH/2002.

¶21

2. The petitioners claim to have got residential houses bearing Nos.3-6-307/A/1 and 17-8-411/23, abutting the road leading from Basheerbagh Junction to Old MLA quarters. There is a proposal to widen the said road to a width of 80 feet. The compound wall and houses of the petitioners are within the alignment of said 80 feet area. Petitioners were issued with the impugned notice, whereby, they were asked to vacate the premises within 24 hours. The said notice is issued based on the consent given by respondent No.3, who is the owner of Plot No.53 of K.B.Lal Layout.

¶22

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were issued pattas for the land in question, wherein they constructed the houses, and as owners, they are residing in their respective plots. On the other hand, it is the case of the 3^rd respondent that the petitioners have no title to the property in question and they made structures by encroaching into

¶23

his property.

¶24

4. The impugned notice is issued based on the consent given by respondent No.3, for surrendering the property. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioners that as they have not consented to part with the property, based on the consent given by respondent No.3, they cannot be evicted. After issuing the notice, dated 17^th August 2002, the compound wall of the petitioners is already demolished. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioners that asmuch as they are in possession of the structures as owners, they cannot be dispossessed as otherwise than due process of law, merely based on the consent given by the 3^rd respondent. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, and the learned counsel Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, appearing for respondent No.3, that the petitioners have no title in respect of the property in question and they are only encroachers on the plot area belonging to respondent No.3, and as such, they cannot resist their dispossession.

¶25

5. Chapter V of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) deals with the provisions relating to acquisition of property. Section 145 of the Act empowers the Corporation to acquire both movable and immovable properties, and Section 146 provides for acquisition of immovable property under an agreement. In the instant case, it is not in dispute

¶26

that petitioners are in possession of their houses, including the compound wall, which is demolished for the purpose of road widening. In the absence of any agreement by the Corporation as contemplated under Section 146 of the Act with the petitioners, they cannot be dispossessed pursuant to the notice, dated 17^th of August 2002. Though the learned counsel for respondent No.3 has disputed the title of the petitioners for continuing their possession over the property in question, but this Court cannot decide the issue of title in this writ petition. As it is an admitted fact that the petitioners are in possession of the property, without entering into an agreement as contemplated under Section 146 of the Act, they cannot be evicted as otherwise than due process of law.

¶27

6. Asmuch as it is stated that further steps are not taken pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, I dispose of this writ petition, directing the respondents not to evict the petitioners or demolish the structures, pursuant to the impugned notice, dated 17^th August 2002. However, it is made clear that if the property of the petitioners is required for any public purpose i.e. widening of road, it is open for the respondents to take steps for acquisition of the same, according to law. It is needless to observe that if any steps are taken for acquisition of property, the 3^rd respondent shall also be given notice.

¶28

7. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is

¶29

disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶30

_____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶31

16^th June 2009 ajr

J.Sreeramulu v. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Sreeramulu v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lipta Samal, Vs Deputy Secretary

K.Saidareddy Vs a.P.Sate Cooperative Rural Irrigation

S. Narasingam Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limitted

S.Ramesh Vs The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Pinnamaraju Venkataramana Gandhi, S/o. Late Narasimha Rao, Vs The Superintendent of Police, Ongole

Sri Pamulapati Kiran Kumar, Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation