Dismissed

Zehara Sultana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC29 Mar 2022WP/1927/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the demolition of her house without passing orders on her written representation, citing violations of earlier High Court orders. The Court found the respondents complied with legal procedures and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Dadhcion to take appropriate steps with police assistance to remove unauthorized construction.

Zehara Sultana Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINTH^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶5

T PETITIO 1 27 0F 20

¶6

Between:

¶7

Zehara Sultana,^{W/o. Syed Mohd. Azam,Aged about 51 years,Occ:Housewife,} nlo. l.t to.+-t^-t i o8/24,^{doggulakunta, Tilak Rbad, Hyderabad, TelanganaState'}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana,^{rep.byits Principal Secretary,Home Depa(ment,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The State of Telangna,^{rep.by its Principal Secretary,l"lunicipaland Urban} Development Depaitment,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad}

¶12

The Commissioner^{of Police, Hyderabadat Basheerbagh, Hyderabad'} 4. The Deputy Commissioner^{of Police, CentralZone, Hyderabad.}

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner^{of Police, Sultan Bazar Division, Hyderabad'}

¶14

The Station House Officer,^{Narayanaguda PoliceStation, Narayanaguda,} Hyderabad.

¶15

Greater Hyderabad L4unicipal^{Corporation,(GHl\4C),rep by its Commissioner,} Tank Gund, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Zonal Commissioner,^{KhairatabadZone, Circle-XlV, GHMC, Hyderabad.}

¶17

Greater Hvderabad^{MunicipalCorporation, Rep.by its Deputy Commissioner,} Crrcle-1 4, GHMC, Goshamahal.^Hyderabad

¶18

10.The Executive Engineer,^{Division-XlV, GHMC, Hyderabad.}

¶19

'1 1 . The Assistant City Planner, Circle-Xlv, GHMC, Hyderabad

¶20

,..RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the HighCourt may be pleased} to issue a writ order or direction, more^{particularlyone in the nature of writ of} madamus, declaring the action of the^{respondents3 to 11 in taking stepsfor} demolition of the structures covered by^{House No.4-1-1108124situatedat} Boggulakunta, Tilak Nagar,^{Hyderabad belongs to the petitioner by virtueof letter} No. lTslZClKztGHMCl?O2z, daled 07.01.2022^{addressed by the 8rhrespondentto} the 4rh respondent scheduled to be^{held on 11.O1.2022that too without passing} orders upon the^petitioner written^{representationdated 30.12.2021andwithout} complying the orders in W.P.No.²⁰³⁹⁸ of^{2021and W.P. 27801of 2021and batch} dl 13.12.2021^passed by this Hon'ble Court as^{illegal, arbitrary, unjustand also} against the^principles of^{natural justiceand againsl the provislonsof HMCAct,1955}

¶22

and T.S. B.Pass Act,^2O2O and^{also againstArticle14,19,21 and 300-4of} Constitution of^{lnd ia.}

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto direct} the respondents not to^{take any co-ersivesteps including demolitionof the} petitioner house property and structures there in^{bearing HouseNo. 4-1-1108124} situated at Boggulakunta, Tilak^{Nagar, Hyderabadby suspendingthe letter No.} 17,:ZC:KZ.GHMC:2OZ2,^{daled07.01.2022addressed by the 8'h respondentto the} 4rh respondent forthwith^{pending disposal of the abovewrit petition.}

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRl.MOHDISHTYAQ AKBAR}

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1 & 3 to 6 : GP FOR HOME}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 2 : GP FORMCPL ADMN URBANDEV}

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 7} to^{11 : SRI N ASHOK KUMAR'SC FOR GHMC}

¶29

The Court made the following^{: ORDER}

¶30

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No. L927 OP 2022

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action^of Respondents 3 to 11 in taking steps to^{demolish the structures} covered by H.No. 4-l-1108124^{situatedat Boggulakunta,Tilak} Nagar, Hyderabad belonging to the^{petitionerby virtue of letter} dated 07.01.2022 addressed by the^{8e respondentto the 4th} respondent, without^{passing orders} upon^{the petitioner'swritten} representation dated 30.12.2021 and without^{complyingwith the} orders in Writ Petitions^{No. 20398 and 27BOl of 2O2l and batch,} dated 13.12.2021, as arbitrary^{and unjust.} 2. Learnecl counsel for the^{petitionerSri Mohd. Istiyaq} Akbar submits that the^{petitioner is the absoluteowner and} possessor of the house^{propertyhaving acquired the sameby} virtue of a registered^{sale deed dated 77.06.2020.It is stated that} the petitioner approached^{this Court by filing Writ Petition No'} 2780I of 2021 questioning^{the revocationletterdated02'O9} '2021 in respect of the house^{property,and this Court along with other} cases, disposed of the^{same directing the respondentstherein to} issue a show cause notice to^{the petitionerand after considering} her expianation, to^{pass an order.It is statedthat the petitioner} submitted explanation on^{07.O1.2022, however,withoutpassing}

¶33

¶34

¶35

any orders on the saicl explanation,^{as per the directions issued b1'} this Court, the respondent authorities^{sought police protectionfor} demolishing the structures.^{Assailing the same, the petitioner} approached this Court.

¶36

Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned Standing^{Counsel for the} respondent Corporation filed a detailed^{counter-affidavit stating} that the petitioner has obtained building^{permissionfor} construction of stiit⁺ two upper floors^{based on self-certificate} submitted by her. It is stated that^{while the respondent officials} were examining the said pian, it is observed that^{permission has} been obtained by misrepresenting the facts therefore,^building permission was rejected uide letter dated O2.O9.2O21.^{He submits} that after this Court passed orders in Writ Petition^{No. 20398ol} 2021, tJre petitioner submitted certain documents^{on 30.12.2021} along with copy of the order without any^{representationand} during the pendency of the same, the petitioner laid^groundfloor slab and raised RCC columns for the first floor in the^subject property without obtaining any permission from the respondent Corporation. Considering the same, an order was^passed by^the respondent Corporation on lO.Ol.2022 observing that the proposed site for construction of stilt for parking + two upper floors in House No. 4-I-ILO9l24, in an extent of 60 square^yards at Boggulakunta is the same subject site which was objected by

¶37

¶38

¶39

Sri P. Brahma Chary and P. Purushotham stating that they^{are the} owners and possessors of the same house. Further, the^petitioner started construction without obtaining building^permissionas required under the provisions of the Building Rules and the^TS- bPASS Act. It is stated that the^{petitionerhad} submitted^another building permission and the same was revoked uide letter^dated 07 .O1.2022. It is also stated that the^{petitioner's representationis} not satisfactory and is rejected and further,^{she was directedto} remove the unauthorised construction of^{groundfloor slaband} columns raised in first floor within 24 hours^{failing whichthe} same would be removed by the GHMC^{and the expensesthereof} would be recovered from her. In the meantime,^{the respondent} Corporation received complaints^{from one P. Brahma Chary who} filed Writ Petition No. 27642 of 2O2l^{against the i1lega1} construction carried out by the^{petitioner' The respondent} Corporation issued notice dated^{16.08.202 1 underSections452(1)} and 461(1) of the Greater Hyderabad^{Municipal CorporationAct,} 1955 and a reply was submitted^{by the petitioneron 23,08.2027} wherein it is stated that she is^{the absolute ownerand possessor} of the land and requested to drop^{the said notice.The respondent} officials have issued another^{notice underSection452(2\ of the Act} on O2.O9.2O21 duly rejecting^{the said replyand also issued fina1} notice under Section 636 of the^{Act, dated 13.72.2021. It is}

¶40

¶41

¶42

submitted that the petitioner failed to question the orders passed by the respondents dated 13.12.2021 and 10.01.2022 and they have attained finality. It is also stated that for removing the unauthorised construction, when they sought police protection, the petitioner has come up before this Court. The learned Standing Counsel submits that a final order is passed under Section 636 of the Act and pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court, building permission was revoked and now the respondents taking the assistance of police are going to remove the encroachment and absolutely there is no inlirmity with the said procedure adopted by the respondents. He further submits that the petitioner could not make out any ground seeking indulgence of this Court. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the respondent Corporation addressed a letter to the 6m respondent Station House Officer and they are also ready to provide police protection for removing the encroachment. 4. The admitted facts are that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 20398 of 2021 and batch, as the petitioner continued to make another floor, notices were issued under Sections 451 and 452 of the Act and final orders were passed under Section 636. Without challenging the said order, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition to declare the action of Respondents 3 to 11 in taking steps to demolish the stiuctures

¶43

)

¶44

covered by the subject property without even passing orders on the written representation dated 9O.12.2021 and without complying with the orders passed by this Court. The respondents have complied with the orders of this Court and issued a final order under Section 636 of the Act. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said action of the respondents. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, the 9th respondent is directed to take appropriate steps with the assistance of the 6fi respondent. No costs.

¶46

¶47

Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any

¶48

shall stand closed.

¶49

SDI K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' do

¶50

SECTION OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

1 One CC to SRl. MOHD^{ISHTYAQ AKBAR,Advocate.} IOPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP FOR^HOME ,High^{Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶53

3 Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL^{ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the Stateof} Telangana at Hyderabad.lOUTl

¶54

4 One CC to SRI N ASHOK^{KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC,AdVOCAIE.IOPUC]} 5 Two CD Copies 6 One Spare Copy 7 The Station House Officer, Narayanaguda^{PoliceStation, Narayanaguda,} Hyderabad.

¶55

8 Greater Hyderabad Municipal^{Corporation, rep. by its Deputy Commissioner,} Circle - 14, GHMC, Goshamahal,^Hyderabad.

¶56

SB NN

HIGH COURT

DATED:29/0312022

ORDER

.-ri
t0??
t& !\h<br>)o
cel'
"!

¶61

WP.No.1927 of 2022

¶62

DISM]SSING^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

¶63

Zehara Sultana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zehara Sultana v. The State of Telangana

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

N. Raghavendra Rao Vs The State of Telangana adn 2 others

M/s. Ad-Ways Vs The State of Telangana

Mandal Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

V. Venkateswara Rao Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, And 3 Others

Smt Aruna Patil and another Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Smt. G. Chandrakala Vs The State of Telangana