Disposed

Nashruddin Hyder Ali Sohani, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Nov 2019WP/24139/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Corporation's attempt to demolish structures without hearing. Court directed verification of sanctioned plan and considered explanation submission before proceeding. Demolition stayed pending final orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed to produce original sanctioned plan; Corporation to consider explanation submitted on 22.10.2019 before proceeding; demolition stayed pending final orders.

Nashruddin Hyder Ali Sohani, Vs The State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 24139 OF 2019

¶2

O R D E R :

¶3

The action of the respondent Corporation in trying to demolish the structures of the petitioner without considering the explanation submitted by him to the notice dated 21.10.2019, without giving opportunity of personal hearing and without following due process of law, is challenged in this Writ Petition.

¶4

The claim of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the entire second floor in premises bearing Municipal Nos. 5-1-592/2 and 5-1-593, situated at Troop Bazar, Hyderabad. He claims to have constructed the subject premises, vide permission granted in 1994, without any deviation from the original sanctioned plan. It is his case that the respective owners of the shops of the second floor have constructed shutters to their parking to safeguard their vehicles from theft as twowheelers were stolen from the said premises. According to the petitioner, he submitted explanation dated 22.10.2019 to the impugned notice.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel Sri N. Ashok Kumar for the respondent Corporation, on instructions, denies the explanation having been submitted by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner had failed to furnish the copy of the sanctioned plan alleged to have been granted in his favour. The learned Standing Counsel asserts that no demolition of the structure has been carried out.

¶7

¶8

Having regard to the respective submissions, since it is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner had failed to submit a copy of the sanctioned plan, there is no need to go into the merits of the Writ Petition. Suffice to direct the petitioner to submit the original sanctioned plan before the respondent Corporation for verification. Further, insofar as the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has not submitted explanation to the notice, the latter asserts that it was submitted on 22.10.2019.

¶9

the petitioner is directed to produce the original sanctioned plan before the respondent Corporation for verification. At the same time, the respondent Corporation is also directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the explanation said to have been submitted by the petitioner on 22.10.2019, before proceeding further. If the petitioner desires, an opportunity of hearing may also be provided. Needless to say, no demolition of the subject premises shall be undertaken till the final orders are passed under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

¶10

The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

¶11

Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

¶12

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶13

04^th November 2019

¶14

ksld

Nashruddin Hyder Ali Sohani, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nashruddin Hyder Ali Sohani, v. The State of Telangana

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

A. Naveen Kumar, Vs State of Telangana

Rupani Venkanna, Vs The State of Telangana

Kalakotla Vijaya, Vs The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation

Ellandula Sanjeeva Kumar S/o Jagadeeswar Vs The State of Telangana

S Venkateshwarlu and 11 others Vs M/s Allwyn Watches Limited (In Prov Liqn)

K.Sheshumani, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary