Disposed

M.A. Majeed and 5 others v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC22 Apr 2022WP/17397/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Notice to Vacate/Repair issued under Section 459 of GHMC Act. The Court held that respondents had forwarded files for structural reports and direct interference is premature. Liberty to approach for appropriate remedies against the eventual report-based notice was granted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach for appropriate remedy against the notice based on structural report. Interim direction to respondents not to interfere with petitione

M.A. Majeed and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana and… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO:17 397 0F 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Road M.A..Majeed, Carrier, R:/o. S/o. H.No. M.A. R"!",g_"q, 9-4-4t29, Hiteemp6t, roticnowfi, Aged 42 years, Occ proprietor M/s. UVOeiaOiO, i.S. Janta^*

¶8

2 Mohd. Rashid, S/o. Mohd Wajid,lged 32 years, occ proprietor M/s. Limra Batteries Auto Electricat work-s, At6. q-zo_izz, iliisan - - liugJi, Muhr;o;J Nagar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Oiit-

¶9

a Mohd. Saleem, S/o. Mohd 9:Tun, Aged about 38 years, occ proprietor M/s. A-Ride.Seat cover, Ri/o. H.No. 12:2386t2, syeir Ali'cra", A;ii'-r.i"#: Hyderabad.

¶10

4 Mohd. Farooq, S/o.itlohd. Abdul.Jabber, Aged 48 years, occ proprietor M/s. lamqqs^{Tyres and Tubes,Rl/o.H.t!o. s-b-tlol3/tui,-Risata} e".ai co-tcon;"; Fort, Hyderabad.

¶11

5 |!"_19 ]:tY:b^{Afjal Hussain Raeen,.S/oAflat Hussain Raeen,Aged about 41} years, occ Proprietor M/s. super Drive shait, R70. H.No. ts-6jaz6/5/A/l;iins Road, Moghal Ka Nala, Hydeiabad.

¶12

tl Mohd. Zahid, S/o Mohd NaZm,,Aged 44 years, occ proprietor M/s. Deccan Radiators, R:/o. H.No. 11-5-3-g1i\4tgil,t SyeO ttagar-2, noiO f.fo- f Z, Hyderabad.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary. Municioal Aomtntslratton and urban development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.'

¶16

Greater.Hyderabad Municipar corporation, Represented by its commissioner, Office at Tank Bund, Hydeiabad.

¶17

Greater-Hyderabad Municipar corporation, Rep. by the Zonar commissioner, Circle 13, K.2., cHMC, Hyderabad.

¶18

Greater-Hyderabad Municipar corporation, Rep. by the Assistant city pranner, Circle 13, K.2., GHMC, Hyberabad.

¶19

Mr. Syed ShabbirAhmed,go, !9!".^9y"9 tvtahboob, aged about 63 years, Occ Landlord, Rl/o. H.No. 12-2_i26l6li, tr/lrrio f.figar,ityderabad.-^{, --'-'}

¶20

Mr. Abdul Jabbar Khan, S/o. Not Known to the petitioner, aged Major, Occ Not Known, Rl/o. Langar Houz, Hyderabad.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition undr:r Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances staled in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of fvlandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 4 in issuing impugned notice vide Lr. No. B1B/A/DILAP/ACP/TPS/C13/GHMC/2O22 dated 2303-2022 (Annexure-1) in respect of shops leased out to the petitioners in Premises bearing l{o.^'1 3-6-826/24, Opp Pillar No. 109, Moghal Ka Nala (Moghal Nagar) Langer House, Hyderabad under section 459 of HMC Act, 1955 to vacate/repair/remove dilapidated structures as illegal, arbitrary, ultravires against the intents and objects of Sections 456, 459, 654, 655 and 656 of GHMC Act. 1955. Consequently, to set-aside the notice vide Lr. No. B1B/A/DILAP/ACP,'TPS/C13/cHMC|2O22 dated 23-03-2022 in the interest of justice.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

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 grant interim suspension of impugned notice vide Lr No. B 1 B/A/DI LAP/ACP/TPS/C 1 3/c H MC I 2022 dated 23.03.2022 (Annexure- 1 ) in respect of shops leased out to the Petitioners in Premises bearing No..l 3-6826124, opp Pillar No.109, Moghal Ka Nala (Moghal Nagar) Langer House, Hyderabad in the interest of justice.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. SYED MOUNIS JAFER ABIDI

¶26

Counsel for the R:espondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶27

Counsel for the Flespondent No 2 to 4 : SRI N ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Flespondent No 5. : SRI MOHD FAQRUDDIN GHORI

¶28

Counsel for the Flespondent No 6: ---

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

THE HONORABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶31

W.P.No.17397 of 2022

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned notice vide Lr.No.B18/A/DILAPiACP/TPStC13tcHMCt2O22 dated 23.03.2022 (Annexure-1 ) in respect of shops leased out to the petitioners in the premises bearing No.13-6-826/24, Opp:Pillar No.109, tvloghal Ka Nala (Moghal Nagar) Langer House, Hyderabad, under Section 45g of HMC Act, 1955 to vacate/repair/remove dilapidated structures, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶34

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioners Mr. Mounis Abidi, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Admlnistration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 , learned Standing Counsel Mr. N. Ashok Kumar, for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Mr.Mohd. Faqruddin Ghori, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the peiltioners are tenants of respondent No.5 by doing their respective businesses of transport, auto electrician, seat repair, tyres etc., and when respondent No.5 is trying to evict them highhandedly, they filed several suits before the XXll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. He submits that respondent No.5 in collusion with respondent No.6 and in conspiracy lodged a false complainl on 21 .O3.2022 stating that the

¶36

LK. J W.P.No.17397 of 2022

¶37

subject^premises leased out to^petitioners are in dilapidated condition and also using his^political connections, influenced the official respondents and making them to issue notice dated 23.03.2022 under Section 459 of GHMC Act without any inspection. Learned counsel further submits that the^petitioners have approached a licensed Engineer of GHMC and requested him to submit a report with regard to its structu ral soundness and as perthe said report, the subject building is structurally sound and safe for more than 20 years and it is neither dilapidate,d nor requires any repairs. He submits that without considering the reply notice dated 30.03.2022 as provided under Section 456 of GHMC Act, sent the officials of respondent-Corporation along urith dismantling persons to the subject property on 31-03-2022 and hence, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court.

¶38

This Court, by order dated 08.04.2022, taking into consideration the Structural Stability Certificate issued by the licensed Structural Engineer of the GHMC, has directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession of petitioners and also directed them to consider the reprr:sentation of petitioners and to file counter and the matter be listed on 22.04.2022 for filing counters by respondents.

¶39

Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed counter-affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel, while reiterating the counter averments, submits that afterr receiving the complaint dated 21.03.2022 {rom respondent

¶40

LK. J W.P.No 17397 of 2022

¶41

¶42

I I

¶43

No.6, the officials of respondents have inspected^{the site andissued} notice under Section 459 of GHIVC^{Act on 23.03.2022 and as lhe} petitioners have submitted their explanations, they have forwarded^the file to the Executive Engineer,^{Circle No.13, GHMC on 29-03-2022 for} furnishing structural stability report.^{He submitsthat the petitioners} have submitted a reply dated^{30-03-2022 tothenotice} dated 23-03-2022 stating that^{the structure of the subject buildingis not} in dilapidated condition. He^{further submits that the petitionershave} filed suits when the landlord^tried to^{evict them. Learned Standing} Counsel further submits that the^{respondent Corporationhas already} sent the file to its Executive^{Engineer on 29-03-2022 seeking structural} stability report of the subject^{building and once they received lhe said} report, they will issue notice^{under Section456 of HMCAct and if the} petitioners are aggrieved by the same, there is a^{remedy of appeal} under Section 654(6) of HMC^{Act before the DistrictJudge.He further} submits that the^{petitioners, without waitingfor the said reportand} notice, have approached this^{Courtand it is a premature writ petition,} which is not maintainable.

¶44

Admiftedly, the^petitioners have^{received notices issued by the} respondents and they have also submitted^{replies to the saidnotices.} The case of the respondent Corporation is^{that the respondent} Corporation has sent the file to the^{Executive Engineerand after} receipt of the report, they will issue notice^{under Section 456 of GHMC} Act and if the^petitioners are^{aggrievedto the said notice,there is a}

¶45

LK. J W P.No.17397 of 2022

remedy to them to file an appeal before the District Judge. ln view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to petitioners to avail an .appropriate remedy as available under law. Till then, respondents shall not inter.fere with the petitioners' possession over the subject prclperties. No order as to costs.

¶50

Mis,:ellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall

¶51

stand closr:d

¶52

SDIK.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

secrrdif#scen

To,

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and urban development, State of Telangana , Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶57

Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lMunicipal Corporation, Office at Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶58

Zonal Commissioner,Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle 13, K.2., GHMC, Hyderabad.

¶59

Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle 13, K.2., GHMC, Hyderabad..

¶60

One CC tc SRl. SYED MOUNIS JAFER ABlDl, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

Two CCs lo GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV ,High Court for the State of Telanganzr at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶62

One CC to SRI N ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC]

¶63

B. One CC tc, SRI tvlOHD FAQRUDDIN GHORI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

g. Two CD Copies

¶65

10.One Spare Copy

CHS

h.-MMA

HIGH COUR

DATED:2210412022

ORDER

.\ h\E a.i.f1i (- <br>(i.
.)
(,) 26 JUL 2071
t,:)

¶72

WP.No.173ll7 of 2022

¶73

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶74

WITHOUT COSTS

¶75

r-
TY]
I w

M.A. Majeed and 5 others v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.A. Majeed and 5 others v. The State of Telangana and 5 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 Heera Lal Bhai Patel Vs The State of Telangana

Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadees Hyderabad and Secunderabad Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Mostafa Askari Hemat Vs The Government of Telangana and another

Kagithapu Mohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Julakuntla Narsimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Kasaram Ramesh Kumar Goud Vs The State of Telangana