Disposed

A Shyam Rao, Hyderabad v. Secy., a.P.H.B., Hyderabad and 3 Others

Telangana HC23 Mar 2022WA/425/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ appeals challenging eviction orders and notices issued under the A.P. Housing Board Shops Rental Regulations, 1975, granting liberty to prefer appeals under the relevant Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals disposed of with liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 55(a) of A.P. Housing Board Act to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court.

A Shyam Rao, Hyderabad Vs Secy., a.P.H.B., Hyderabad… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

WEDNESDAY,^{THE TWENTYTHIRD DAYOF-N/ARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEFJUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSiiCE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶5

WRIT APPE ALN os.399,4^{25&426 of 2012} and¹ 3^{80 of 2011}

¶6

WRIT APPEAL^{NO:399oF 2012}

¶7

Writ Appeal^{under Clause15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against} the order^{dl. 28.11.2011in WPNo27 337 oI 2011onthe file of the High Court'} Between:

¶8

Sri A. Srinivas Yadav,^{S/o. Late ARama Swamy'.agedabout40 years'Occ:} R/o Block^{- 15, Flat No s, i'piiE'CirJn1,'aibntingampallv'Hvderabad'} Business,

¶9

...Petitioner/APPellant

¶10

AND

¶11

TheAndhraPradeshHousingBoard,RepresentedbyitsSecretary, G;i;i;i;;,^{M,J.Road, HYderabad'}

¶12

rho /i.e chairmrn a nou.ilg'6liimitsionet^{Andhra Pradesh Housing} Aoird. Gruhakalapa,^{Ir/ J Road Hyderabao'}

¶13

The Governrhent of^{Andnra"CriOisf''nep by its Secretary'Departmentof} ts+|;::'o,H'13'3?3i", n H o u s i n s B o a rd' G ru h a ka I p a'

¶14

Tf, : i: fl . t^""'fi lsl* M.J.Road, Hyderabad ...Respondents/Respondents

¶15

Counsel^{for the Appellant: SRI' VIVEK JAIN}

¶16

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'1 & 2: SRIG' VISHWESHWAR REDDY} (sc FOR^TSHB)

¶17

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'3 & 4: GP FOR HOUSING}

¶18

WRIT APPEA^{LNO:4250F 2012}

¶19

Writ Appeal^{under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal prefened against} the order^{dated28'1'12011in W P No 25964 of 2011on the file of the High Court'}

¶20

'' Between:

¶21

' I Sri A. Shvam Rao'^{S/o Late A RamaSwamy' aged about 54 years' Occ: Business'} il;.'i-8-iro,^{Cnitt<aoapatty, Hvderabad} ...petitioner/Appellant

¶22

AND

¶23

/, /

¶24

TheAndhraPradeshHousingBoard.RepresentedbyitsSecretary, cirnjriipJ,^{[,/.J.Road HYderabad}

¶25

2 The vice Chairman^{& Ho"i;;6;;missioner'Andhra Pradesh Housing} a o, i ts S^{e c reta} ry,^{D e p a rtment or} ?i3 H;;;'.r"d, t ":Jilfl:?s;;;ti' ,t l i3i^**:"6,.i#$l'ffi t'itdinn*^Hvderabad' FiaJ"tr'^{HousingBoard'Gruhakalpa'}

¶26

4 The Land^Acquisrtron "n'."tY'Ani'n"ti IM.J.Road, Hyderabad ...Respondents/Responde^nts

¶27

Counsel^{for the Appellant: SRI' VIVEKJAIN}

¶28

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'1 & 2: SRI G'.VISHWESHWARREDDY} (SC FOR TSHB)

¶29

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'3 & 4: GP FOR HOUSING}

¶30

WRIT^{APPEAL NO:426 0F2012}

¶31

Writ Appeal^{underClause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against} the order^{dated28 11 2011 inW'PNo 25962 of 2011on the file of the High Court'} Between:

¶32

Sri A .Ram^{MohanYadav, S/o A Rama Swamy' aged about 48 years' Occ:} Business,R/o Block 13,^{Flat No 03, MIG ll' APHBColony' Baghlingampally'Hyderabad'}

¶33

... Petitione^r/APPellant

¶34

AND

¶35

lTheAndhraPradeshHousingBoard'RepresentedbyitsSecretary' G;t;;i;ip;,^{tr/l J.Road, HYderabad'}

¶36

1. The^{Vice chairman'f'Ho'tiii;b,g",11l'::rorrer'Andhra PradeshHousing} "^{+ffi.g;g:y|3:?]i3i^H*5"3'ifl$l'fl3?io, its secretary' Departmentor} " Housing, Secretariat Buildings' HyderaDao' 4 The Land n"qu't'r'Ji.t?#rc!I^{Atoll' p'adesh HousingBoard' Gruhakalpa'} M.J.Road,^Hyderabad' ...Res^{pondents/Respondents}

¶37

Counsel^{for the Appellant: SRI' VIVEK JAIN}

¶38

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'1 & 2: SRI G'.VISHWESHWARREDDY} (SC FOR TSHB)

¶39

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'3 & 4: GPFOR HOUSING}

¶40

la. ,t.

¶41

¶42

WRIT APPEAL^{NO:1380 OF 2011}

¶43

tli

¶44

.,/' Writ Appeal under^{Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the order} daled 28.11.2O11 in W.P.No.25953^{of 2011 on the file of the High Court} Between:

¶45

i.P, Anjamma,^{W/o1ateP Natasitnira,aged 80years'} fuo,H.No.^{l'8'702132158,PadmaColony'} BehindShankar^{Math,Hyderabad-500044} 2.Ch. Lakshrni^{I(antha, W/oP'Venkatesham'aged46 years'} Illo. H,No.^{l-8'702132158,PadmaColony'} BehindShankar^{Math,I{ydelabad-500 044'} I
3.P.Vasucier,.^{S/o.1ateP.Lakshn.raia'h,aged 68,vears'} Rio.HIG-I.Block^IV'FlatNo'5, 13a^ghI-^{ingampa1ll,I.I1'd eraL-'ad}-^5000'14' i l
4.{.'..lanalclhan.^{S,'olvlSai1u,agcd 53I ears'} R,'o.\1lG^{(OG).Block l''',FlatNo''1'} Brsh^1-lrrqitrlt-.':t^{lillJ1derr'nrc}-^5000'14
:.\1.I'r:r.-.hrr;rllti.^{\'o.\1.'Jrlrrrdhl''n'rgccl J5lells'} ii,o.\11(itOG).^{IllocliIr'.Il:rLNoi'} llaglt I-rng:rnrprlll.^{IJlclel':rir:r:- -i00ll'1'1'}
6\1.Salvrn:t:rrtna.^{S'o.laie\1'Llrahrn:i:lll' r'lccl561ears'} l{o.IL\o.l-.i-^{IiE'1.C}illtkltll:rll'"} OL-'1-'^{-\PII[3 (]'-r::r'"crs.I Ir cltrairlcl}
IIJ.'ttrlilrt:lIi.:'.ttl^{l,I Lt.S'o.I)lrrg:rrah: i:d'19'"e"'rs'} l{o.\llG'i.Biocli^{li).l:1al\05,} 1)agl' I-in3anrl-':rrl1,^{1Ilciclehad5000l;l'}
8.S,,\chr,rtan^{I{edclv,Sro. I{anrachandraRedci,r''aged 65years'} R,'o\1lG-ll.Blocl<^lX'FlatNo'5, L3EgirI-ingarrpaLli',^IlyCerabad-^{500 044}
g.P.Balakrishna,S/o.PVenkata Nalsaiah,^{aged 49}1'eals' Rio.ILNo. 2-2-l^{055/2l,Arnberpet,} pocha6naBasri.I{,vderabad.
10.C.'lallai:.1',,^{SlolateC Ratlaiah,aged 60 years'} R1o.'1lG-]. Block^iV,Flai-\o^2' BagLtLir.rganrpa)1,v,^1l;'c1erebad-^{500 044}

	1l,s.Vijayakumar',^{S/o.Venkateshrvarlu}'^{aged 63 years'} R;o.MiG-lI,Block^Vl,FlatNo4, BaghLingampally,^Hyderabad-^500044'
,
	13,P.Latha,^{W/o.late P.Sudhal<ar,aged53years,} fuo.H,No.1-5-537,^{BesideSagarlaiHospital,} Bollaram,^HYderabad.
I I	l4.NLKrishnaIlao.^{S/oSanrbasivr'rdu, aged}'16I'ears, Rro.H.No.i^{1-13-900, RoadNo.2.} Saroot-nagar,^{Gfeenl:lillsColon)'.} I{angaReddl'Districr-^{50003 5,}
	I 5.P.Vinrala,\^{io.Vasuder. :geci(16}I^eats' I{ro.IllG-1.lllockl/.^FlaiNo.i, llaghL.in1:.:rrlnalll.^{IllcleraL-'aci}-^5000l'+'
	l6.Ci.Re.ltnd:r,S,^{o.Cl.Kotla::.inh. aled}'i9^\errs' li,o 9-E0rI-1,2.Udal'nagal^Cc'lony. lloucllporl^{(r'iliage),Il.R,i)rstrict.}
	17.1(. DayanaLrci^{Perka, Sio.lalcSoll.raiah1'erkaageci6-1l cals'} IUo.H.\o,^{3- 5-999. Naral'angutla.} Hvdeiabad-^500029.
	l8.R.Sandeep,^{S/o.late R, Balaram,aged49years,} R/o.Il,No.^{5-9-9127,NaubatPahad.} NearRirlaMandir',^{Opp.ReserveBankofIndia,} Flydelabad-500⁰⁰⁴
	19.P.Ravi Babu.^{S/o.P. Sammaiah, aged 38years,} R/o,H.No,^{16-I l-i6/J/i9A,Plashanthnagal Colony,} Moosarambagl.t,^{Malakpet,lJyderabad}-^500036'
	20.Y.Ramachander,^{S/o.Butchaiah,aged 54 years,} R/o.H.No.2-2-644^II,Pauttia^Basti, BaghAmber'pet,^HYdelabad.
	21.H.A.Prasad,^{S/o. Nagabhushatram, aged5 1 years,} Wo.FlatNo.^{302,VijayavamsiResidency,} EastAnandbagh,Malkajigiri,^l{ydelabad-⁵⁰⁰⁰⁴⁷
	21,Y.(lourica:hi^{Rao,Sio Y.P Ranallao.agecli3; ear'} R,o.lliG-ll.Blocii'l^Iilat\o.ll. r{.::...:-.r111.:l .llr.'-,'.;'l

¶50

23.Y..1a1'ala)<shr:ri,^{W1o.Y.Gori"ripathi Rao'aged47 years'} fuo.HIG-ll.Block^3,FlatNo.12. BaghLirrgampall-v,^Hydelabad.
2.1.K,VenkatRcddy'.^{Sio.lateSatvanaralrana Reddy', aged 38-veats'} Rio.\1lGll.Block^{25, Flat}^'o. 15. 13agrI-in ganrPa^{1lY,Fllderahac.}
2.5.C..Ta)asucl1',a.^{\'1o.C.Vinod)(un.rar,agcd3'1)'ears,} Rio.I'l.No. l-3-^{lE5r-1,SoapFactorv Area,} BnghIingnmpalil',^Hltlerahai.
2(r.\r:er:clelDr'l'atal,^{Sio. D.l{alrlr-rILr, ageci '17 1'cars,} R o.ll.\lo.B-^I8,F-{.^{I{amrragalColonl} I1y'dcrar:rci.
l7.ll.ivleno^{Dee1t.Sro.B.'laclhLrs'-lcan,aged4':lvears,} R,,o.ll.\o.^,1-l-^{l9i2.. Snehap.,r"r:iColon,v.} StleciNo.^1l.\achalarr^{Road.I IlderaL:rc1}
2E.P.Dal akar^{Reddy'.Slo.San.lee'aRedd,v,aged30years'} Rio.Il.No. 12.-2-82lrCi6l,^SBIColony. ir'lehdipatnam, l1;^clerabacl.
29.D.Su.1arha,\^/o.D.L.^{'enl<ateslvata Rao,aged34years,} R,'o.ll.\o.1-5-72Ei2iC,QuLbi^Gr-rda, S^uitanRazar.Koti.^l{,vcieralad
30,B.Narender,^{S/o.B.RamaRao,aged47 years,} fuo.5-26,M.A.Nagar,^MahabubPet, Hydelabad.
3l,H,Satyanarayar.ra,^{S/o.H.Easwarlal,aged52years,} R/o.13-3- II03^lI22,^{Jiyaguda,HydeLabad-500006'}
32.I(.Lal<slrmi,^\Vio.K,^{Prabl.ialiarReddl',} rgccl ,i51'cals.^{R.1o.iH.No.12-13-677irl'+(PlotNo.205),} Kl\ITEEColonl',Street^{No.l,'faranalia,} Scc'.rncleral-'ari--i^{000 i7.} Appellants/Petitioners :tncl
l.ArdhlaPraciesh^{I lor,rsirlg13oartl.} reprcs.nte(ibrits^{"iceC-lrai:'ltrrnanr-ll lousing Colnl.nissioner,} GlirhakalpaBuⁱldings,^{Nl..1.iload,Flydcrabed.}
2.The Executive Engineer^(Hg) SouthDivisior.r,A.P.H,B., Gruhal<alpaBuiidings, M.J.^{Road,Hyderabad}

¶51

tI /'

¶52

3.The Competent Authority, A.P.FLB.,

¶53

Gruhakalpa Buildings, M.J. Road, Hyderabad.

¶54

4.Smt. Rekha Rani,

¶55

Land Acquisition Officer, A.P. Housing Board, Gnr}rakalpa Buildings, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. RespondentsRespondents

¶56

WAMP. NO: 1530 OF 2012

¶57

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hlgh Court may be pleased fix an early date for the final disposal of the above Writ appeal WAMP. NO: 153'l OF 2012

¶58

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 issue an ,/ interim direction directing the respondent authorities to consider the representations pending with the Government requesting for consideration of their request to sell the premises under their occupation in accordance with the policy of the Government on payment of market value in the light of the Special circumstances attached to the premises in occupation of the writ petitioners, who are the appellants herein, pending the above appeal

¶59

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. P.V. MAHESH

¶60

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI G. VISHWESHWAR REDDY (sc FoR TSHB)

¶61

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP FOR HOUSING

¶62

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶63

I L

¶64

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTI CE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶65

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR I

¶66

WRIT APPEAL Nos.399 425 &, 426 of 2OL2 and 1380 of 20 1 1

¶67

¶68

COMMON JUDGMENT:^(Per the Han'ble the Chief Justice Satish Cha dra Shar7r.a)

¶69

Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order.

¶70

The facts of W.A.No.425 ol 2Ol2 are reproduced as under: The facts of the case reveal that the appellant before this Court was allotted a shop by the A.P. Housing Board and he came up before this Court being aggrieved by notice/order dated 03.01.201 1 issued under the provisions of A.P. Housing Board (Shops) Rental Regulations, 1975.

¶71

Learned counsel for the appellant has also informed this Court that pursuant to the notice issued in the matter, the appellant was evicted and the eviction was subjected to^judicial scrutiny before the learned Singie Judge and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. He has fairly stated before this Court that there is a remedy under Section 55(a) of the A.P. Housing Board Act and a liberty be^granted to^prefer an

¶72

¶73

appeal in accordance with law before^{the ChiefJudge,City Civil} Court.

¶74

In the light of the aforesaid, the^{present writ appeals}

¶75

stand disposed ofwith^{a liberty to prefer an appeal.}

¶76

Miscellaneous applications^pending, il any,^{shall stand}

¶77

ciosed. There shall be no order^{as to costs.}

¶78

Sd/- K.SRINIVASA RAO '/ JOINT^R GISTRAR // TRUE COPY^/l N OFFI CER

¶79

¶80

i . fwo CCs^{to the GPfor Housing, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT]}

¶81

One CC^{to Sri Vivek Jain,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶82

i. One CC to Sri^{G.VishweshwarReddy' SC for TSHB [OPUC]}

¶83

One CC to^{Sri P.V.Mahesh,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶84

One CC^{to Sri C.Vijay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶85

Two C.D.^Copies.

¶86

One SPare^CoPY.

¶87

CHR <sup>,y

HIGH COURT

DATED:^23-03-2022

COMMON^JUDGMENT

WA Nos.399,^{425 & 426 OF 2012& 1380 OF 2011}

¶93

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT APPEALS} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶94

A Shyam Rao, Hyderabad v. Secy., a.P.H.B., Hyderabad and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Shyam Rao, Hyderabad v. Secy., a.P.H.B., Hyderabad 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

T.Vijay Kumar, Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of T.S. Ltd.

Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corp.Ltd. Vs Smt. Susheela Bai

Telangana State Industrial Infrastucture Vs Y.Chandrasekhara Chowdary

G. Sudheer Kumar Vs Deveineni Arun Kumar

Sri Shiridi Sai Samaj a Registered Society Vs the Govt of A.P and 4 Others

Smt.B.Laxmi, Vs The Joint Collector-Ii, Ranga Reddy District