Petition challenged acquisition and demolition of property. High Court dismissed interim prayer on merits while compensation was for the whole property. Court stayed proceedings and fixed cause list.
No interim relief granted; proceedings stayed and parties directed to produce award and appear in motion list after 10 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WP .NO:9853 of 2015
Between:
1 Mr. Sajid Ali S/o Mohd. Ali.
..... Petitioners
AND
.....Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more preferably one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 in trying to acquire and demolish the remaining portion of the property of the petitioners bearing No.4-1-665, Mozamjahi Market, Jambagh Road, Hyderabad, which is apart from the property marked for acquisition as illegal, arbitrary and against the Principles of natural justice, and consequently, direct the Respondents to restrain from any such acquisition or demolition.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of SRI AADESH VARMA Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, for Respondents, and the Court made the following.
ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioners is that substantial portion of the petitioners’ property bearing D.No.4-1-665, Ground floor, Mozamjahi Market, Jambagh X roads, Hyderabad was demolished by the respondent authorities leaving a 3 feet portion of the property for which compensation was paid by the respondent authorities. Now, the respondent authorities are trying to demolish the leaving part of 3 feet portion. Aggrieved by the same, the
present writ petition is filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, who reiterated the contents of the writ affidavit. Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation states that the compensation was paid for the entire property including the 3 feet portion to the petitioners, but because of delay in road widening programme, the petitioners are doing their business in the said 3 feet portion.
In view of the same, no interim relief can be granted at this stage since it is stated that the compensation was already paid to the petitioners for the entire property.
Learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation seeks time for filing counter.
Learned standing counsel is to produce a copy of the award.
Post after 10 days in the motion list.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To
SRL
HIGH COURT
ARRJ
DATED: 07.04.2015
NOTE: POST AFTER 10 DAYS IN THE MOTION LIST.
ORDER
W.P.NO. 9853 OF 2015
DIRECTION
HIGH COURT
Drafted by: SRL Date of Drafting : 16.04.2015
ARRJ
DATED: 07.04.2015
NOTE: POST AFTER 10 DAYS IN THE MOTION LIST.
ORDER
W.P.NO. 9853 OF 2015
DIRECTION
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an interim injunction can be granted against the demolition of the remaining portion of property when compensation has been paid for the entire property.
Whether the acquiescence in the delay in road widening justifies the continuation of business on the remaining portion.
Mr. Sajid Ali S/o Mohd. Ali
Mr. Amjed Ali S/o Mohd Ali
Majid Ali S/o Mohd Ali
The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
The Special Deputy Collector, (LA) GHMC
The Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
