Disposed

The Maharaja Functiopn Hall, v. The Warangal Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC11 Dec 2018WP/4895/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the Municipal Corporation's attempt to seize a function hall. The Court observed the petitioner failed to file a regularization application within the interim period. It granted liberty to file a fresh application, directed the Corporation to consider it within eight weeks if filed, and prohibited coercive measures until disposal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a fresh application under Section 455-A within two weeks; Corporation to consider same and pass orders within eight weeks; respondent prohibited from taking coercive measures p

The Maharaja Functiopn Hall, Vs The Warangal Municipal… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No. 4895 OF 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent-Corporation in trying to seize the petitioner’s function hall bearing No.11-23-1494 and 11-23-1495, situated at L.B. Nagar, Warangal, without giving any opportunity for regularization under Section 455-A of the H.M.C. Act, 1955 (for brevity “the Act”) and without passing any orders under Section 636 of the Act, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

When the matter came up for admission on 18.2.2013, this

¶5

Court passed the following interim order:

¶6

“Subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- within a period of one week from today to the Municipal Corporation of Warangal, the function hall belonging to the petitioner may not be seized. But however, within fifteen days from today, the petitioner shall file appropriate application before the Municipal Corporation for consideration. The present order will abide by the decision, which the Municipal Corporation will take in the matter.”

¶7

Heard Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Pingali Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for Warangal Municipal Corporation.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the interim direction dated 18.2.2013, the payment has been made to the respondent under and an application has been filed Section 455 of the said Act.

¶9

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions submits that the petitioner has not filed any application, whatsoever to the respondent, pursuant to the interim directions, dated 18.2.2013.

¶11

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application under Section 455-A of the Act, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such a representation is filed the respondent is directed to consider the same, after giving opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of eight weeks thereafter in accordance with law. Till the application filed by the petitioner under Section 455-A of the Act is disposed of, the respondent-Corporation shall not take any coercive measures against the petitioner. However, it is also made clear that, if the petitioner does not make any application within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the respondent is at liberty to take action in accordance with law. No costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

_________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶14

Date: 11/12/2018 Slk

¶15

¶16

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶17

WRIT PETITION No. 4895 OF 2013

¶18

Date:11/12/2018

¶19

¶20

slk

The Maharaja Functiopn Hall, v. The Warangal Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Maharaja Functiopn Hall, v. The Warangal 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

Mohammed Jaffar, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Shantha Rathi, Hyd and Another Vs Commissioner, Ghmc, Hyd and 3 Ot

Ankari Ganesh, Adilabad Dist. Vs the Mancherial Municipality, Rep.by Commissioner, Adilabad.

Dr. Syed Sirazuddin Ahmed , Malik Hussairi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Malleshwari Vs The Kandukur Municipality

Smt. Ayesha Farhana Vs The Warangal Municipal Corporation