Disposed

Y. Venkat Swamy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Apr 2022WP/12059/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these writ and miscellaneous petitions challenging demolition actions, the Constitution Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana directed the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation officials to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner. Pending adjudication, the Court restricted the authorities from taking any coercive steps like demolishing the house.

What did the court decide?

The Corporation was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law; coercive steps were stayed pending adjudication.

Y. Venkat Swamy Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

IUONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 12059 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Y. Venkat Swamy, son of Mr.Y. Ramaiah, aged about 58 years, occupation: labourer,^-, resident of H.No: 6-2-188116, Syamala Nagar, Shivarampally, Rajendernagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The P.rincipal Secretary, State of Telangana, [t/unicipal Administration Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Hyderabad.

¶12

The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad IVlunicipal Corporation, Rajendranagar Zone, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle - Vl, Rajenderanagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle - Vl, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.

¶15

Poila Praveen, son of P. Chandraiah, aged bout 40^years, occupation: laborer, resident of H.No. 6-2-1BBl1 , Shyamala Nagar, Shivarampally, Rajendernagar [t/andal, Ranga Reddy District - 500052.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of l\rlandamus declaring that the taking action of the official Respondent Nos.² to 5 without following due process of law, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of natural justrce, consequently direct the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for not to take any coercive steps particularly not to demolish the^petitioners house^property, and pending the adjudication of the Writ Petition No 271^'19 of 2021 on the file of this Hon'able Court.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

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 no.2 to 5 (Municipal Corporation officials) and their subordinates restricting or directing the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 not to take any further action more particularly not to demolish the house of the Petitioner pending writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI. AHMED EHTESHAM KAWKAB Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 to 5: P. KRISHNA REDDY (SC FOR GHMC) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

1 1

¶22

I I

¶23

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

WRIT PETITI ON No. L2059 0F 2022

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition is fi1ed questioning the action of Respondents 2 to 5 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from Part of Plot Nos. 15 and 16, Syamala Nagar, Shivarampally, Rajendernagar, Ranga Reddy District, without following due process of law, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. - Sri Ahmed Ehtesham Kawkab, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2OO4, the petitioner constructed a small house by obtaining permission for the authorities and also by following necessary norms and procedure. He submits that the official respondents without issuing any notice and without following due process are trying to interfere with the petitioner,s possession and trying to demolish the house at the behest of the unofficial respondent, hence, the petitioner approached this Court. It is stated that this Court has granted interim order on OZ .O3.2O22 and the same is subsisting.

¶27

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation Sri pasham Krishna Reddy submits that the Corporation has already issued notice to the petitioner

¶28

under Sections^{452(1) arrd 452(2\of the GreaterHyderabad} Municipal Corporation^{Act and they will take appropriateaction} in accordance^{with law.}

¶29

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner submitsthat no} such notice^{was issued to the petitioner'}

¶30

In the facts^{and circumstances of the case' the Writ} Petition is^{disposed of directing the respondentCorporation to} issuefreshnoticetothepetitionerandtakeappropriateaction in accordance^{with law. Till then, the respopdent authorities} shall not take^{any coercivesteps against the petitioner'There} shall be no^{orderas to costs'}

¶31