Dismissed

Smt.Eniganti Padma, v. The District Collector (P.R) Wing

Telangana HC22 Feb 2017WA/205/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Intra Court Appeal dismissed against the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the Gram Panchayat's decision to auction shops. The court held that since the petitioners occupied the premises free of cost for 10 years before being permitted to construct in 2001, they cannot now demand permanent lease and must participate in the auction.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; the petitioners were directed to participate in the auction.

Smt.Eniganti Padma, Vs The District Collector (P.R) Wing — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI

¶3

WRI T APPEAL No.205 of 2017

¶4

Betw een:

¶5

Smt. Eniganti Padama and others.

¶6

PETITIONERS

¶7

And

¶8

The District Collector (P.R) Wing, Karinmagar District, Karimnagar, and others.

¶9

RESPONSENTS

¶10

VRS,J & JUD,J. W.A.No.205/2017

¶11

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI

¶13

WRI T APPEAL No.205 of 2017

¶14

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian)

¶15

Aggrieved by the decision of the Gram Panchayat to put up for auction the petty shops located inside the Panchayat, the petitioners filed a writ petition, but the same was dismissed by the learned Judge. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioners have come up with this Intra Court Appeal.

¶16

The main ground on which the petitioners challenge the action of the Gram Panchayat are (1) that with the permission of the Gram Panchayat they constructed shops in the year 2001 at their own cost and hence until the return on investment is taken, they should not be thrown out; and (2) that when they have been paying monthly rents promptly, it is not fair on the part of the Gram Panchayat to throw them out.

¶17

But a careful look at the resolution passed way back in 2001 would show that the petitioners were occupying a vacant market place and doing petty business for 10 years before 2001. In order to get income for the Gram Panchayat, a resolution was passed on 13.07.2001 permitting the petitioners to put up constructions and to take them on lease.

¶18

In other words until 2001, the petitioners have occupied a vacant market place and enjoyed the same for about 10 years without giving any income to the Gram Panchayat. In 2001 they were permitted to put up constructions and enjoy the same on lease. Now a period of 16 years have elapsed. Therefore the appellants cannot ask for more and the learned Judge was right in rejecting the writ petition.

¶19

VRS,J & JUD,J. W.A.No.205/2017

¶20

¶21

It will be open to the appellants to participate in the auction and if the petitioners became the highest bidders their leases shall be continued as per the terms and conditions of the auction. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶22

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

__________________________ JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN

¶24

__________________ JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI

¶25

22^nd February, 2017 Js.

¶26

VRS,J & JUD,J. W.A.No.205/2017

¶27

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND

¶29

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI

¶30

WRI T APPEAL No.205 of 2017

¶31

Date: 22-02-2017

¶32

Js.

Smt.Eniganti Padma, v. The District Collector (P.R) Wing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Eniganti Padma, v. The District Collector (P.R) Wing

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

M/s. Stackline System Private Limited, Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Goel Plywood, D No. 27-12-60, Chetla Bazar Alibarg Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Prl. Secretary

M/s. Bavirisetty Mallikarjuna Rao Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer - I

The Principal Commssioner of Income Tax-1 Vs M/s. Jaya Constructions

M/s.Sushee Hitech Projects (P) Ltd, Vs Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee Hills Circle, Hyderabad.

The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Vs M/s. Jaya Constructions