Partly allowed

Mohammed Munawar v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC9 Jun 2010WP/12857/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed notices issued under Section 636 of the G.H.M.C. Act. The Court directed the Corporation to pass a reasoned order recording specific findings on the identity of the petitioners' properties before taking any further action.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings under Section 636 are quashed. Petitioners permitted to file additional representations within one week.

Mohammed Munawar Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.12857 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO.12859 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO.12860 OF 2010 AND

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.12861 OF 2010

¶4

COMMON ORDER:

¶5

Heard Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. At their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶6

The petitioners claim to be the owners of residential buildings having purchased it by way of different registered sale deeds. Reference is made to various Suits filed by the 3^rd respondent, which have no direct bearing on the dispute raised in the present writ petitions. Suffice to note that, when a notice was issued to the petitioners under Sections 461 and 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court (W.P. NoS.28859 of 2009; 28517 of 2009; 2882 of 2009; and 28524 of 2009) and this Court, while disposing of these Writ Petitions, took note of the discrepancy regarding the description of the property mentioned in the two notices, the fact that the provisions invoked were different, and that the petitioners had already submitted their explanation. The respondents were directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioners and take further action only after a specific finding was given as to the identity of the properties of the

¶7

petitioners and issuance of a notice under Section 636 of the Act. The petitioners’ grievance, in these writ petitions, is that, without giving a specific finding as directed by this Court in the order aforementioned, notices were issued to them under Section 636 of the Act seeking to demolish their houses.

¶8

Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, on instructions, would fairly state that the Corporation was ready and willing to pass a reasoned order recording a finding as to the identity of the properties of the petitioners and that action, if need be, would be taken, under Section 636 of the Act, only after such an order is passed by the GHMC.

¶9

These Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of permitting the petitioners, if they so choose, to file additional representations. If such representations are filed within one week from today, the respondent corporation shall consider their earlier explanations, and the explanations now filed, and pass reasoned orders recording a finding as to the identity of the properties of the petitioners and thereafter, if need be, take action in accordance with law after issuing a notice under Section 636 of the Act. The impugned proceedings, issued under Section 636 of the G.H.M.C. Act, are quashed. No costs.

¶10

09.06.2010 RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J

¶11

MRKR

Mohammed Munawar v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Munawar v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

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

Karri Venkatesh Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

T.Sankara Reddy Vs Gunturu Seetharamaiah Anna Sathram Trust

Mamillapalli Satyanarayana Vs Gunturu Seetharamaiah Anna Sathram Trust, Atchuta

Sri Chaitanya Brilliant School Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

Mantrala Venkateswaralu Vs Simchalam Devasthanam

J.Suveer Sen Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,rep.by its