Allowed

Harshvardhan Chokhani v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Telangana HC1 Nov 2016WP/25219/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition allowed. The court relied on a Larger Bench decision holding that tenants must be given notice even if landlords consent to land acquisition by municipal authorities for road widening. The petition is allowed due to the non-issuance of notice to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's Writ Petition is allowed on the ground of non-issuance of notice to the petitioner.

Harshvardhan Chokhani Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.25219 of 2001

¶3

ORDER

¶4

Petitioner is the tenant of premises bearing No.4-6-244, Subhash Road, Secunderabad and has been continuing in possession by regularly remitting the monthly rents. While so, the 3^rd respondent sought eviction of the petitioner and the proceedings initiated in respect of the same are pending before the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.12979/99 and the Apex Court vide order dated 17-9-99 stayed the operation of the judgment made in CRP No.2236/1997 and the same is pending. While so, the 1^st respondent issued a notice to the 3^rd respondent seeking his consent for the purpose of acquiring a portion of the subject shop premises in a width of 6 ½ feet from the existing road, but no notice was issued to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition was filed.

¶5

This court by order dated 11.12.2001 granted interim direction.

¶6

The issue as to “Whether in case of acquisition of land by municipal authorities, for road widening, on consent of the landlord of a shop any notice is necessary to be given to the tenant in the shop?”, was referred by a Full Bench to a Larger Bench and the Larger Bench in a decision rendered in W.A.No.453 of 2005, WP Nos.5135 of 2001 and 10106 of 2002 answered that notice to the tenant of the shop is necessary in case of acquisition of land by

¶7

Municipal Authorities for road widening even if the landlord/owner of the premises has given his consent.

¶8

In view of authoritative pronouncement of the Larger Bench of this Court that the tenant has a right of notice, this Writ Petition is allowed on the ground of non-issuance of notice to the petitioner. However, it is open to the first respondent to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, if the first respondent wants to acquire any portion of the land in occupation of the petitioner. No costs.

¶9

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶10

___________________________________
JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
1 st November, 2016
rkk

Harshvardhan Chokhani v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshvardhan Chokhani v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Nicomac Clean Rooms Far East Private Limited Vs -

M/s. Nicomac Micro Solutions Private Limited Vs -

Kumbala Raji Reddy, Vs Ronald Ross

Sreenivasa Constructions Corporation, Vs The District Collector and Special Officer

T.Vinod Vs The Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad

B. Anjaneyulu Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its