Dismissed

Shaik Ahmed Hussain v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC5 Jul 2012WP/32670/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging orders by Hyderabad Corporation as illegal and arbitrary for directing removal of unauthorized iron boxes in a public corridor. Bench found no illegality in notice despite petitioners' claim of long-standing existence.

What did the court decide?

Notice dated 03.12.2011 directing removal of iron boxes was upheld as legal and non-arbitrary.

Shaik Ahmed Hussain Vs Greater Hyderabad… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.32670 of 2011

¶3

Date: July 5, 2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Shaik Ahmed Hussain and another

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Order:

¶11

This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring notice dated 03.12.2011 issued to the 1^st petitioner by the 2^nd respondent vide Lr.No.1112/ACP/C5/SZ/GHMC/2011 as illegal and arbitrary. Identical communication is also issued to the 2^nd petitioner and the same is also under challenge in this writ petition.

¶12

Earlier, petitioners were issued notice dated 26.10.2011 vide Lr.No./ACP/C5/SZ/GHMC/2011 stating

¶13

that they have erected iron boxes in the premises bearing Pr.No.20-4-1112, situated at Julukhana, Ladbazar, Hyderabad, in the corridor of the Julukhana complex unauthorizedly. It is alleged that the corridor space is meant for public use and erection of such iron boxes is a clear encroachment on the public road. Accordingly, petitioners were given opportunity to remove those structures in public interest.

¶14

It is stated that petitioners filed reply to the said notice, a copy of which is placed on record. In the explanation filed by the petitioners, without furnishing any material to show that such structures are authorized by the competent authority, they have merely stated that the said structures have been in existence from the year 1994 and at no point of time objections were raised by anybody. They further stated in the explanation that Julukhana complex is a commercial complex and a private property and there is sufficient space left for public use.

¶15

Referring to the notice dated 26.10.2011 and the reply of the petitioners dated 21.11.2011, impugned notice is issued stating clearly that the iron boxes/bunks are erected by the petitioners unauthorizedly, without any permission from the GHMC and petitioners failed to furnish any proceedings of sanction for erection of such

¶16

iron boxes/bunks in the premises in question.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that, earlier, when notice under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 was issued, petitioners filed W.P.Nos.27993, 26313 and 16307 of 2010 and this Court, while setting aside the said notice, directed to consider the explanation of the petitioners, but, in spite of the same, the impugned notice is issued without considering the explanation of the petitioners.

¶18

I have perused a copy of the notice dated 26.10.2011 and the reply filed thereto, by the petitioners, on 21.11.2011. Though there is a specific allegation of unauthorized erection of such iron boxes/bunks, which fall within the definition of ‘building’, as defined under Section 2(3) of the Act, petitioners, without producing any material to show that there is an approval for such constructions, have merely stated that they were obtained on rent and have been in existence from the year 1994. In absence of producing any proceedings authorizing such structures, along with the explanation, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notice directing the petitioners to remove the iron boxes/bunks. Further, even in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is clearly stated that there is no authorization for

¶19

construction of such iron boxes/bunks and the same are constructed without any authorization.

¶20

Though it is the case of the petitioners that such iron boxes/bunks are within the Julukhana complex, but, when space is specifically left for corridors, such space is to be left for public use and no constructions are to be made therein.

¶21

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notice.

¶22

Writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶23

______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J)

¶24

July 5, 2012 MRR

Shaik Ahmed Hussain v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Ahmed Hussain v. 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

R.Venkateshwarlu, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Kollori Sita Ramulu, Vs The District Collector

Kilari Krishna Vs The District Collector

E v Satish Kumar, Vs The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

E.Chinna Peddiah, S/o Venkatiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Mangath Singh and Company Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation