Dismissed

Smt. Munni Bai v. Prl. Secretary to Revenue

Telangana HC10 Jul 2009WP/24356/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the bulldozing of their premises by private individuals (respondents) via Article 226, claiming illegal action and seeking compensation. The Court dismissed the petition as misconceived, ruling that the respondents are not State/Instrumentalities under Article 12 and no criminal complaint was filed against them.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as misconceived. No order as to costs.

Smt. Munni Bai Vs Prl. Secretary to Revenue — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 24356 of 1999

¶5

Between:

¶6

1 Smt. Munni Bai W/o. Late Shyamlal R/o. H.No. 6-3-252/185 & 186, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad.

¶7

2 B.Eshwar lal S/o. Late Shyamlal R/o. H.No. 6-3-252/185 & 186, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad. 3 B.Mohanlal S/o. Late Shyamlal R/o. H.No. 6-3-252/185 & 186, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad.

¶8

4 B.Sunderlal S/o. late Shyamlal R/o. H.No. 6-3-252/185 & 186, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad.

¶9

5 B.Anandlal S/o. Late Shyamlal R/o. H.No. 6-3-252/185 & 186, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad.

¶10

6 B.Nandulal S/o. Late Shyamlal R/o. H.No. 6-3-252/185 & 186, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad.

¶11

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Prl. Secretary to Revenue, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Prl. Secretary to Home, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4 Sri. Bhanwarlal, Hyderabad District.

¶15

5 Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶16

6 Executive Engineer, PWD, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 7 K. Madusudhana rao S/o. Purushothama rao Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad. 8 D. ramulu Panjagutta Police Station. 9 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 10 Chief Engineer, Roads and Buildings (P.W.D), Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 11 D.Sudershan Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad. 12 Sri Ishaq Akbar, S/o. Late Mohd. Burhanuddin Akbar Divisions (Buildings), A.C. Gaurds, Hyderabad. 13 M. Surya Narayana S/o. M. Kondaiah Khairatabad Mandal, R/o. Plot No. 505, Saraswathi Enclave, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶18

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 a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in buldozing the premises bearing H.No.6-3-252/185, 186 in Old Sy.No.107 situated at Erramanzil Colony, Panjagutta Village, Khairtabad Mandal, Hyderabad District of the petitioners duly causing heavy loss and making the petitioners shelterless as illegal, malafide, arbitrary and bad and consequentially direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- [(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) to the petitioners for the loss caused to them (and further direct the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in their premises bearing H.No. 6-3-252/185, 186 in Old Sy.No. 107 situated at Erramanzil Colony, Panjagutta Village, Khairtabad Manadal, Hyderabad District)] and pass The Prayer is amended as per Court Order dt. 9.3.2000 in WPMP 4895/2000

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.SHARATH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.: .

¶21

The Court made the following :

¶22

ORAL ORDER:

¶23

The writ petition is misconceived. Neither the State nor an Instrumentality of the State is impleaded as a respondent to this writ petition. The array of the impleaded respondents is:

¶24

“1 Prl. Secretary to Revenue, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶25

2 Prl. Secretary to Home, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶26

3 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4 Sri. Bhanwarlal, Hyderabad District.

¶27

5 Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Abids, Hyderabad. 6 Executive Engineer, PWD, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 7 K. Madusudhana rao S/o. Purushothama rao Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad.

¶28

8 D. ramulu Panjagutta Police Station.

¶29

9 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad.

¶30

10 Chief Engineer, Roads and Buildings (P.W.D), Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

¶31

11 D.Sudershan Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad.

¶32

12 Sri Ishaq Akbar, S/o. Late Mohd. Burhanuddin Akbar Divisions (Buildings), A.C. Gaurds, Hyderabad.

¶33

13 M. Surya Narayana S/o. M. Kondaiah Khairatabad Mandal, R/o. Plot No. 505, Saraswathi Enclave,

¶34

Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad.”

¶35

The petitioners seek a declaration that the action of the respondents in bulldozing the premises bearing H.NoS.6-3-252/185, 186 in Old Sy.No.107 situated at Erramanzil Colony, Panjagutta, Khairtabad Mandal, Hyderabad District causing loss to the petitioners is illegal and for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- each for the loss caused. What the petitioners allege is that the respondents who are in public office have committed acts, which are cognizable under the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have not filed any complaint against any holders of public office, who are alleged to have committed criminal trespass or other cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code before the jurisdictional police or before a competent Judicial Magistrate by way of a private complaint. With regard to recompense for the tortuous or other injury suffered, the petitioners have a remedy before a civil court of competent jurisdiction by way of seeking damages. Even such course is not pursued. The petitioners have chosen to file a writ petition even without impleading the State or an Instrumentality of the State. The petitioners rest content with impleading the respondents mentioned above. The above respondents, per se do not constitute the State or an Instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or within the procedural discipline enjoined by the provisions of Cr.P.C.

¶36

On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶37

GODA

¶38

RAGHURAM,J 10.7.2009. KRB.

¶39

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶40

WRIT PETITION No. 24356 of 2009.

¶41

Dated: 10.7.2009.

Smt. Munni Bai v. Prl. Secretary to Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Munni Bai v. Prl. Secretary to Revenue

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

Tappeta Santhamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

T.R.Thyagarajan Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

G.Venu Gopal Rao Vs The District Collector and Magistrate (Joint Collector)

P. Ram Narayana, Vs District Collector Karimnagar District

Gopathi Shyam Rao, Vs The District Collector

B.Shashi Kumar Vs The Labour Court-Ii