Allowed

S.Ramesh v. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Telangana HC16 Jun 2009WP/15403/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that without entering into an agreement under Section 146 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the petitioner could not be evicted. Directing respondents not to evict or demolish structures, it noted acquisition must follow legal procedure.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents not to evict the petitioner or demolish the structures pursuant to the impugned notice dated 17.8.2002.

S.Ramesh 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 : 15403 of 2002

¶5

Between :

¶6

S.Ramesh S/o.Ramachander, R/o H.No.3-6-307/A/2, Hyderguda, Hyderabad.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Asst. City Planner, Circle No.III, Muncipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 3 Lanka Ramalingaiah, Rep. by V.V.S.Sudhakar Babu, Plot No.506, Navodaya Colony, Sagar Society, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, 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 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/TPSC3/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.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

In this writ petition, the petitioner has 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.

¶18

2. The petitioner claims to have got a residential house bearing No.3-6-307/A/2, 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 the house of the petitioner are within the alignment of said 80 feet area. Petitioner was issued with the impugned notice, whereby, he was 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.

¶19

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was issued patta for the land in question, wherein he has constructed a house, and is residing therein as an owner. On the other hand, it is the case of the 3^rd respondent that the petitioner has no title to the property in question and he made the structures by encroaching into his property.

¶20

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 petitioner that as he has not consented to part with the property, based on the consent given by respondent No.3, he cannot be evicted. After issuing the notice, dated 17^th August 2002, the compound wall of the petitioner is already demolished. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that asmuch as he is in possession of the structures as an owner, he 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 petitioner has no title in respect of the property in question, and he is only an encroacher on the plot belonging to respondent No.3, and as such, he cannot resist his dispossession.

¶21

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 that petitioner is in possession of his house, including the

¶22

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 petitioner, he 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 petitioner for continuing his 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 petitioner is in possession of the property, without entering into an agreement as contemplated under Section 146 of the Act, hey cannot be evicted as otherwise than due process of law.

¶23

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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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.

¶24

7. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶25

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶26

16^th June 2009 ajr

S.Ramesh v. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ramesh 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

J.Sreeramulu 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