Disposed

R. Navaneeth Kumar v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC1 Oct 2012WP/21517/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of five writ petitions filed by various residents and associations against the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and other respondents. The court directed the authorities to give notice and a chance of being heard before proceeding to demolish the petitioners' houses or encroachments, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to decide the matter after giving notice and a chance of being heard, and to pass a reasoned order within two weeks. Demolition prohibited until such time.

R. Navaneeth Kumar Vs The Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.21517, 21674, 21986, 22683 and 25638 of 2010

¶7

W.P.No.21517 of 2010 Between:

¶8

R. Navaneeth Kumar & others.

¶9

… Petitioners

¶10

And

¶11

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad & others.

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

W.P.No.21674 of 2010 Between:

¶14

D. Suryanarayana & others.

¶15

… Petitioners

¶16

And

¶17

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Hyderabad & others.

¶18

… Respondents

¶19

W.P.No.21986 of 2010 Between:

¶20

C. Ramana Chary & others.

¶21

… Petitioners And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents W.P.No.22683 of 2010 Between: M/s. Sri Balaji Engineering Enterprises Balanagar, Hyderabad & another. … Petitioners And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents W.P.No.25638 of 2010 Between: Sobhana Colony Residents Association Balanagar, Hyderabad & another. … Petitioners And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Hyderabad and others.

¶22

… Respondents

¶23

This Court made the following:

¶24

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶25

WRIT PETITION Nos.21517, 21674, 21986, 22683 and 25638 of 2010

¶26

COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶27

Since the issue involved in this batch of Writ Petitions is one and the same, these Writ Petitions are being heard and disposed of together. W.P.Nos.21517, 21674, 21986 and 22683 of 2010 have been filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proceeding to demolish the petitioners’ houses without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice.

¶28

W.P.No.25638 of 2010 has been filed under the Public Interest jurisdiction for issuing a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting survey, demarcating, removing the encroachments on the 66 feet Nala in between Fatehnagar to Balanagar and removing the silt therein, preventing release of industrial effluents and further contemplating to widen

¶29

the said Nala by demolishing the houses constructed with valid permissions in the private land, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

At the hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.21517, 21674, 21986 and 22683 of 2010 submitted that without issuing any notice and without following due process of law the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is seeking to demolish the houses of the petitioners in question.

¶31

Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation submitted that the Corporation had issued notices to all the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.21517, 21674, 21986 and 22683 of 2010, along with other encroachers and that the Corporation is going to take further steps in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶32

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for all the parties, we intend to resolve the problem by directing the respondents/authorities to decide the matter in question, after giving notice and a chance of being heard to the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.21517, 21674, 21986 and 22683 of 2010 and all alleged encroachers and pass a reasoned order in the matter, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that if at all the respondentsauthorities find that the petitioners along with other encroachers are at fault, they may be proceeded in accordance with the provisions of law including removal within a week thereafter, and until such time the respondentsauthorities shall not proceed to demolish the properties in question.

¶33

These writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms. No costs.

¶34

______________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶35

__________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶36

Date: 01.10.2012

¶37

R. Navaneeth Kumar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Navaneeth Kumar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mantena Rajendra Babu, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem

Baggiri Bayamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ajay Logistics and Parcel Service, Vs Union of India

D. Veeraswamy Vs The Govt. of a.P, Revenue Department

Forum for a Better Hyderabad, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. N.Venkata Lakshm Vs The District Collector