Disposed

Afroz Nabi Khan v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC30 Dec 2010WP/33354/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petitioner sought protection against alleged illegal demolition of his house and claimed compensation for encroached land. The court restrained the respondent from demolishing the construction flagged in the show cause notice pending a final decision on the petitioner's explanations.

What did the court decide?

Restrained demolition of the flagged constructions pending a final decision on the petitioner's explanations; claim for compensation left open.

Afroz Nabi Khan Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

¶2

Writ Petition No.33354 of 2010

¶3

DT. 30.12.2010

¶4

Between: Afroz Nabi Khan

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation & another

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao

¶9

Counsel for respondent: Sri P Radhakrishna Reddy, SC for GHMC The Court made the following ORDER:

¶10

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

¶11

Writ Petition No.33354 of 2010

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The petitioner who claims to be the owner and possessor of plot bearing H No. 16-11-16/L/9/A, Teegalaguda, Malakpet, Hyderabad, has filed this writ petition, seeking compensation in respect of part of the land which

¶14

was allegedly taken by the respondents and further alleging that respondents are taking steps to demolish the constructions made on the said plot, as illegal.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor or land admeasuring 592 sq.yards in plot bearing H No. 16-11-16/L/9/A, Teegalaguda, Malakpet, Hyderabad by virtue of an agreement of sale dated 10.11.1994. During the year 1999, on account of change in the master plan, the respondents encroached a part of the said land and demolished the basement structures without notice or intimation and without paying any compensation.

¶16

On the remaining part of the land, he has constructed a house with compound wall and the same has been assessed to property tax. The respondents have issued a show cause notice dated 30.11.2010 under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, calling upon the petitioner to remove the illegal and unauthorized erection of AC sheets shed, which has been constructed without any permission. The petitioner states that he has submitted his explanations on 6.12.2010 and 21.12.2010 thereto. In the said explanations, while reiterating the earlier alleged taking over of the land, the petitioner explained that he has erected the house with compound wall to safeguard the land and also explained that he has approached the authorities for regularization. So far authorities have not passed any final orders on the explanations filed by the petitioner. Apprehending demolition of the construction even without passing final orders, in order to protect the constructions till the decision is taken, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr R Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-GHMC.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel for respondents on instructions submitted that the representations filed by the petitioner are pending consideration and so far, no decision has been taken.

¶18

Having regard to the same, until the concerned authority considers the explanations submitted by the petitioner on 6.12.2010 and 21.12.2010 and a final decision is taken thereon, it is appropriate that the illegal constructions pointed out in the notice dated 30.11.2010 should not be demolished.

¶19

In view of the above, it is directed that the concerned authority shall take appropriate decision on the explanations submitted on 6.12.2010 and 21.12.2010 by the petitioner in response to the notice dated 30.11.2010 and until a final decision is taken thereon, the constructions pointed out in the said notice shall not be demolished. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner seeks permission to keep open the issue, relating to compensation so as to enable him to agitate his rights before the appropriate forum. Hence, it is left open for the petitioner to agitate his claim for compensation before the appropriate forum.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

_____________ NOUSHAD ALI,J

¶22

DATE: 30.12.2010 TVK

¶23

Note : Issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs. B/o Tvk

¶24

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

¶25

Writ Petition No.33354 of 2010

¶26

DT. 30.12.2010

¶27

Note: Operative portion by wire.

Afroz Nabi Khan v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afroz Nabi Khan 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

Md. Abdul Rawoof Vs The Commissioner

Dr. N. Ranganayakulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Bandam Chinnakka Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Jwala Bikhsam Vs The Kenara Bank

Pilli Manikyamma Vs The District Manager

Ramayyagari Nitish Chandra Reddy Vs The Union of India