Disposed

Mirza Abrar Baig v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and 3 Others

Telangana HC4 Jun 2021WP/3289/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging inaction regarding demolition of a building. The court directed official respondents to demolish the structure within two weeks if it is found dilapidated and structurally unfit, after putting occupants on notice.

What did the court decide?

Directing official respondents to demolish the building within two weeks if found dilapidated after notifying occupants, subject to a structural fitness certificate.

Mirza Abrar Baig Vs Greater Hyderabad… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK^REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 3289 OF²⁰²¹

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mirza Abrar Baig, S/o. Late.Miza Shakoor^Ba Occ. Business, R/o.H.No. 2-3-131 , 29114,^ig, Nallagutta,^{Aged about} Ramgopalpet,^{45 years,} Secunderabad.

¶8

,..PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Greater Hyderabad IMunicipal Corporation,^{Rep. by its Commissioner' Lower} Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad^- 500^029.

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner,^{GHMC, Circle No.30, RamgopalpetRoad,} Nallagutta, Secunderabad-500003.

¶12

Assistant Citv Planner, Town^{Planning Section,GHIr,4CCircle No.30,} Ramgopalpei Road, Nallagutta, Secunderabad-500003.

¶13

Thakur Vikramjeet Singh, S/o^{T. RamSingh, aged about 60 years H.No. 2-4-529} ' Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad-500003.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 oI^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may be pleasedto} issue appropriate writ, order or^{directionparticularlyin the nature of a writ of} mandamus declaring the inaction^{on the part of respondents 1 to 3 in the matter of} removal/demolition of the^{premises bearingNo. 2-4-524 to 530 at Nallagutta,} Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad, as^{illegal, arbitrary, violative of article21 of the} constitution of lndia, contrary^{to the provisionsof the GHlvc Act 1959 and issuea} consequential direction,^{directing the respondents to take immediateaction in respect} of the same.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleasedto direct} respondents 1 to 3 to seal^{the premises bearing Nos. 2-2-524 to 530 at Nallagutta,} Ramgopalpet, secunderabad^{in termsof section 458 (2) of the GHtt/cAct 1955,} pending disposal of WP.No. /2021

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. J PRABHAKAR}

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos. 1 to 3: SRl.CHATLA MADHU,SG FOR GHMC}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 4: NONEAPPEARED}

¶21

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶22

THIj HON'BLE SI{I JUSTICU A,ABI{ISHEK IIEDDY

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.3 289 of 2021

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is filed secking a writ of nrandamus declaring the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in removing/demolishing the premises bearing Nos.2-4_524 to 530, Naliagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶26

This Court, on 1.I.02.2021, while issuing notice before admission, directed the learned counsel for the petitioner-,to take out pe,rsonal notice to respondent No.4 and file proof of ser.vice.

¶27

Pursuant to the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sent notice to the respondent No.4 and fiied the proof of service through Memo datecl 25.02,2027.

¶28

A perusal of th.e postal cover lhrough which the notice has been sent to the respondent No.4 discloses that the same h.as beeh returned with an endorsement "un claimed,,.

¶29

l'his Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on number of occasions, held tirat in case a party does not claim the notice sent through registerecl posf the Samc shall be treatecl as service of nohce.

¶30

As no vakalat has been filed on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.4, he is sct ex parte.

¶31

Ileard the lcarne.d counsel for the petitioner ancl Sri Chatla Madhu, the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondent

¶32

¶33

¶34

Nos.1 to 3. With their consent, the Writ petition is disposed of ar the stage of admission itself.

¶35

During the course oI hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the officiai respondents have initiated action way back in September, 2020, but thereafter, they have not taken any action. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the writ petition with the foliowing directions:

¶36

In case, the building in question is found to be in a clilapidatud condition and the Structural Fitness (.crtificate issued by the competent authority is supporting the same, the official responclents shall take necessary action to demolish the building in question, sh'ictly in accoardance with raw. 'fhe said exercise shall be completed by the authorities concerned within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to rnention that before taking any action, the occupants of the building in question shall be put on notice.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶38

I'he miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶39

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

SD/- N.CHANDRA SEKHAR^RAO ASSISTANT REGIS AR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

.1 . The commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lvlunicipal corporation Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad^- 500 029.

¶46

The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC,^{Circle No.30, Ramgopalpet Road'} Nallagutta, Secunderabad-500003.

¶47

Assisiant City Planner,^{Town Planning Section, GHtt/C Circle No 30,} Ramgopalpet Road, Nallagutta, Secunderabad-500003.

¶48

One CC to Sri. J Prabhakar,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

One CC to Sri. Chatla Madhu,^{SC for GHMC} [OPUC]

¶50

Two CD Copies.

PMc;-

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0410612021

ORDER

WP.No.3289 of 2021

1 HE srA
,'1
a
5 ,l
3 rr l JtJri! 2|]?1 .}
,:1,

¶57

Disposing of the WP Without costs.

¶58

Mirza Abrar Baig v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mirza Abrar Baig v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and 3 Others

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 Avanii Meadows Private Limited. Vs The State Of Telangana

Vishnu Constructios Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd. and 3 Others

Mohammad Anwar and 16 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Sri B. Sridhar Prasad Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Matam Kumara Swamy and another Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

K. S Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana