Partly allowed

Mrs.Noor Jahan Begum v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC5 Nov 2021WP/27606/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition and special leave petition filed by a petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to declare an acquisition notice illegal. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit ownership documents and directed the respondents not to pressurize her for consent or demolish the property without following due legal procedure.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to submit ownership documents; respondents directed not to pressurize petitioner for consent or demolish property without following due procedure.

Mrs.Noor Jahan Begum Vs The State of Telangana and 2… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE SI TELANGANA AT HYDE#JE DOF (Speciat Originat .luriiiictiony

¶2

FTPAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER rwo THoUSAND AND rwer.rrV CjNf"i '

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

Between:

¶6

WRI TPE TITI ONN i 276 6 F 2021

¶7

AND

¶8

XII^{llgp|. Jahan Begum,} Wo.Sri. Mohd. Azizuddin p,99 r-lyderabad-TSHouse_wife, R7o.H.r.ro.r S_S_1 0d9/A/1 i,-'-ffi;i;; AgedColoabout ny, Jahanuma,68 years, ...PETITIONER

¶9

The State of Telanoana. Rep. b.y its principal Secretary, Municipal Administrative 2. ?;! 3i::i"?fi1:'3fi ;5i;;e'rasri'^{s;;;i';;i;iioLraoao} p bv its

¶10

co m m i ss io nerI H;; ; o ]ti" "ir[J:i ?j[?%? l"rl f,[1?:1r#*. The Assistant citv pra-nner Towt ira;;i;g sJ.iio'n,tiiru No.1 0, Falaknuma Grearer Hygsrabad rr/unicipaI boip"ia'iiox ri'vvruvqw" ivi.iii[r"0"i,ni|ee HiIIs, Hvderabad-TS

¶11

...*=aT.NDENTS

¶12

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the_affidavit fired therewith, the High court ina"y ou pr"ur"o to issue a writ, order or Direction more particurarry one in the nature of Writ of N/a1da1nqs declaring the actions of the iespondent Nos.2 and 3 in issuing the undated Notice vide Lr.No.L/R12lRW/Acp/c-10/cHMC/2020 io tu p"iitilni, ov demanding that the Petitioner shourd give consent and handover the advance possession of a portion of her property i.e. House property bearing n,,lunicipat No.9-3-1089/4/12, admeasuring 210.21 Sq.yards or equivaleni ro 1zs:76 sq.N/ts., situated at Bagh Umda Begum, Madina corony, Jahanuma, Hyderabad, as iilegar, arbitrary and in violation of^principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles, 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India in the interest of justice.

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶14

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to demolish or dispossess the petitioner from her House Property bearing Municipal No.9-3-1089/4/12, admeasuring2lO.2l Sq.yards or equivalent to 175.76 Sq.lr/ts., situated at Bagh Umda Begum, IMadina Colony, Jahanuma, Hyderabad, in the interest of justice pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHD ZIA UL HAQ

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URABAN DEVELOPMENT

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI PASHAM KRISHNA REDDY,

¶18

SC FOR GHMC.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE H(,NOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK' LAKSHMAN} PETI ON No'^{2706 of 202r}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard^{earnedcounsel for the petitioner ancl Sri Pasham} Krishna Reddy,^{leamedStanding counsel appearingtbr respondent} Nos.2 and^{3. with their consent,this writ petitionis disposed of, at} the admission^stageitself'

¶23

This w' it^{petition is filedto declare the actionof the respondent} Nos.2 and^{!in issuing notice, vicle Lr'No'L/Rl2/RW/ACP/C-} l 0/GHMC/2(^{20, dated 29.07 .202| , to the petitionerdemanding lrer to} give consent and^{handover the possession of affectedportionof her} property beaing H.No.9-3-10891N12,^{admeasuring 210 21 sq'yards} situated at Bagh^{Umda Begum, Madina Colony, Jahanuma'} Hyderabad, es^{illegal and arbitrary.}

¶24

The p,:titioner herein^{claimsto be the absolute ownerof the} above said ;ubject^{property.The 2nd respondenthas served the} impugned n rtice on the^{petitioner requesting her to handoverthe} possession olthe affected portion ofthe subject^property and to^give consent und :r Section 146 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (firr short'the Act') in the interest of public. The details o1' the same ar e specifically mentioned in the said notice. But the petitioner is not interested to give consent pursuant to said notice issued under Section 146 of the Act and she has also not submitted any reply or explanation to respondent Nos.2 and 3 informing the

¶25

¶26

same. As there is threat of demolition of the subject prop€rty, the present writ petition is filed.

¶27

On the other hand, Sri pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing counsel, on instructions, would submit that respondent Nos.2 and 3 never pressurized the petitioner to give consent under Section 146 of the Act pursuant to impugned notice as alleged in the writ affidavit and that they would follow the procedure laid down under law for acquisition of the subject property.

¶28

In view of the above subrnissions, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit copies of ownership documents and inform respondent Nos.2 and 3 that she is not interested to give consent to the impugned notice issued under Section 146 of the Act. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are at liberty to take stepsⁱⁿ accordance with law and are further directed^not to^{pressut'izethe} petitioner to give consetlt under Section¹⁴⁶ of^{the Act pursuant to} impugned notice. They are^{further directednot to demolishor} dispossess the^{petitioner from the subjectpropertywithout following} the due^{procedure laid down under law.}

¶29

Miscellaneous^{petitions,if any, pending, shall stand closed'No}

¶30

costs.

¶31

ASSTsTAN?D{ft?JrEflH //TRUE CoPY/t br/' SECTION^OFFICER

¶32

-Iff t}iffi ffi :H:

¶33

'o'',l^{. ,n" Principal secreta} ;+isffi"#Fr:iq,t'#,ffi fiiig;:g{f Having^{its office at I i}

¶34

Untl"'

¶35

v Planner Town^{Planning Section, Circle No '10' Falaknuma'}

¶36

1. The^AssistantCi Greater^HYderab Iiffi;;;i^{p;i'C;ipoiit,oiHvderabadJ ubileeHil ls'} Hvderabad-TS

¶37

a. Ohe CC to^{Sri It} ohd Zia Ul^{Haq,Advocate[OPUC]} Ali'mi nistration^{andU rban Development'}

¶38

1. Two^{CCs to GP} Hioh Court for^tl' i'si"iJ "i'vi"i.ipur otT"ransana^{at Hvderabadtol'lll..} ^,

¶39

a Orie CC to^{Sri P} ;Jfi-ft.h";^{{eddY, SCforGHMC, [oPUC]} 7. Two^{CD CoPies} B. One SPare^CoP' SlTl

¶40

*--.-

: l

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/1^1/2021

ORDER

WP.No.27606 of 202'l

1 6 STe 16r
q
o
1 7 No\l'rCI?l (v;z
J.
+
-1
* t

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE V'P. WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

n*z
Y)
t?<br>

Mrs.Noor Jahan Begum v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Noor Jahan Begum v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

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

Sri. Tunuguntla Venkata Ravi Krishna Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and another

Dacha Laxmi Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Banothu Veera Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

M Shoba Vs State of Telanagna and 2 others

Bothala Bapuraju Vs The State of Telangana

D.Ramachander and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others