Disposed

Sri Shah Roopraj v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC18 Apr 2022WP/15289/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking injunction against demolition of petitioner property by GHMC. Court directed petitioners to explain service of a specific notice as a show cause notice within two weeks, pending which no coercive steps could be taken.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to explain the notice dated 22.03.2022 as a show cause notice within two weeks, after which parties to submit responses in two weeks. No coercive action pending.

Sri Shah Roopraj Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 15289 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Shah Roopraj, S/o. Sri Vansraj Shah, aged about 58 years, Occupation B U SINESS

¶8

Smt. Ramilaben Roopraj ghah, W/o. Sri Shah Roopraj, aged about 53 years, gc-cupation. Household. (Both are R/o. H.No.5-3-504,' Nampally, Hydeiabad, T.S )

¶9

Smt. Raksha Sharma, W/o. Sri Ritesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 29 years, Occupation. Household, Rl/o. H.No.13- 3241A, Kakarla Vari Street, Nelloie.

¶10

Smt. Gopi Devi, W/o. Sri Hajaram Rajnaji, aged about 29 years, Occupation. Household, Rl/o. H.No.16-1 1-3, Salipet, Sharof Bazar, Veeiaraghavulu Street, Tenali.

¶11

Smt. Balabhadra Naga Saranya, W/o. Sri B. Jagan [/ohan, aged about 29 years, Occupation. Household, Fl/o. H.No.7- 191131A, Akkala Van Street, Ganganamma Peta, Tenali.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The Greater Hyderabad Ir/unicipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lr/unicipal Corporation, Circle No.1 4, Goshamahal, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad IMunicipal Corporation, Circle No.14, Goshamahal, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶17

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ and direct the respondents to act in accordance with law and forbear from demolishing any of the house property of the petitioners bearing premises No.5-3-851/1/A totally

¶20

admeasuring 1083 sq.^{yards situated at Surya Mahal, MouzamJahiMarket,} Hyderabad, without following the^{procedureof law and withoutnotifyingthe} petitioner about the adverse circumstances and^{without giving opportunityto the} petitioners to resist such an action.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151^{CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High couftmay be pleasedto direct} the respondents not to^{demolishany part of the house property bearing premises} No.5-3-851/1/A totally^{admeasuring1083 sq. yards situated at SuryaMahal,} Mouzam Jahi Market, Hyderabad,^{pendingdisposal of the writ petition.}

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners:SMT.^{CHINTALAPUDI LAKSHMIKUMARI}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent^{No's. 1 to 3: SRI N.ASHOK KUMAR (SCFOR} GHMc)

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondent^{No.4: GP FOR MCPLADMN URBAN DEV}

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HONORABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI W.P.No.15289 ol 2022

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to act in accordance with law and forbear from demolishing any of the house property of the petitioners bearing No.5-3-851/1/A total admeasuring 1083 sq. yards, situated at Surya Mahal, Mouzam Jahi Market, Hyderabad, without following due^procedure of law.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the^petitioners Ms. Ch. Lakshmi Kumari, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.l to 3 Mr.^N. Ashok Kumar and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.4.

¶31

Learned counsel for the^petitioners submits that the^petitioners are absolute owners and^possessors of house^{property bearing} No.5-3-851/1/A, total admeasuring 1083 sq.^yards, situated^at Surya I/ahal, Mouzam Jahi [/arket, Hyderabad, and they have filed a suitⁱⁿ O.S.No.1197 of 2017 on the file of lll Junior^{Civil Judge, CityCivil} Court, Hyderabad, against the District Collector,^{HyderabadDistrict,} the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad and the^Tahsildar, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad, for^perpetual injunction^{restraining the} respondents from interfering in any manner with their^peaceful possession and enjoyment and construction activity over the plaint A to E of scheduled^properties. The said suit^was decreed^{in theirfavour}

¶32

LK. J !v.P.No.15289 of2022

¶33

¶34

and the appeal is pending. Learned counsel further submits^{that on} 23.03.2022, respondent No.3-Assistant City Planner came to^the petitioners' property and threatened them that they will demolish the house property. Learned counsel submits that though the^respondent Corporation has stated in their counter that a notice under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of GHMC Act,^'1955 vvas issued on 09.03.2022 to^petitioners, the same was received by one Sajan and the petitioners are no way connected with the said notice. He submits that the action of respondent No.3 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and hence, they are constrained to approach this Court.

¶35

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counter. Reiterating the counter averments, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the respondent Corporation has recerved a letter from the Tahsildar, Nampalli Tahsil, Hyderabad dated 13-02-2A22, stating that the petitioners are trying to claim the slum land admeasuring^'1080 sq. yards and taking up the construction activities in the said Government land with an intention to grab the same and they have also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.1197 of 2017 fot injunction and the same was disposed of against the Government and requested the respondent Corporation not to accord any sort of permission for construction and developmental activities in respect of the subject land. He submits that on receipt of the said letter, the officials of respondent Corporation have inspected the site and noticed that there is existing laid slab for

¶36

LK. J W P.No.15289 of 2022

¶37

sub-cellar and columns for cellar floor were erected earlier, which was stopped and seized the subject site by the revenue department in June, 2019. He submits that at^present, no construction actlvities are found at site and after verifying with the available office records. He further submits that though notices were issued, the^petitioners have failed to submit any reply and they have served notice on the^persons, who were carrying out the construction work and as such, the respondent-Corporation has followed the^procedure and the allegation of the petitioners that highhandedly they are trying to demolish^the property is denied and has no legs to stand.

¶38

As per the counter, the case of the respondent Corporation^is that the Corporation has received a letter from the^Tahsildar dated^'13.0'1 .2022 stating that the^petitioners are^{trying to claim the} slum land admeasuring 1080 sq.^yards and^{takingup construction} activities therein, and they also filed a^{suit in O.S.No.1 '197of 2017,} which was decreed in favour of^{petitioners and admittedly, an appealis} pending. lt is also stated in the counter that the subject^propertyis seized by the Revenue Department. But this^{Court is not able to} understand under what^provision of law, such act^{has been doneby the} respondents. However, as far as the^{respondent Corporationis} concerned, if they have not accorded any^{permissionto petitionersand} any unauthorised constructions are^{made,they can initiateaction} against the petitioners only after^following the due^procedure. According to the Corporation, they have^{issued notice, but it appears}

¶39

¶40

LK. J !V.P.No.15289 of 2022

¶41

that the notice was served on the^person, who is carrying out the construction work, but not to the petitioners. lt is submitted by the petitioners that as per the interim order passed by this Court, they are not proceeding with the construction activity.

¶42

ln the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioners to submit their explanation to the notice daled 22.03.2022 treating it as a show cause notice, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on receipt of such explan-ation, the respondent Corporation shall^pass appropriate orders within two weeks thereafter. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken in respect of the subject^property and the^petitioners shall not^go ahead with the construction. No order as to costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ^petition shall

¶44

stand closed.

¶45

SD/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// L.' SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

The Commissioner,Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶48

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad l,4unicipal Corporation, Circle No.1 4, Goshamahal, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶49

The Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No.1 4, Goshamahal, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶50

The Secretary, lvlunicipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶51

One CC to SMT. CHINTALAPUDT LAKSHIVI KUMARI Advocate toPUC,I 6. One CC to SRl. N ASHOK KUMAR (SC FOR GHMC), Advocate tbpUCi 7. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV,High Court forihe Staie of Telangana. [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies.

¶52

One Spare Copy. GB BS \

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 810412022

ORDER

1 H a 5 l.
x
+
1 3 iiiii ;,;12
a
* :'
STATCt

WP.No.15289 ot 2022

DISPOSING OF THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS.

b
V)

Sri Shah Roopraj v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shah Roopraj v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

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

Mohammed Farooq Uddin. Vs The State of Telangana

E.Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

Syed Sulaman Yamani Vs The State of Telangana

Poduri Ranjith Vs The State of Telangana

Malothu Purnima, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Savitha Vs The State of Telangana