Disposed

Rahim Bin Hussain v. The state of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC10 Oct 2022WP/23761/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special original jurisdiction matter was disposed of without issuing any writ order or direction. The High Court directed the respondent Corporation to take expedient steps to vacate an interim order from the City Civil Court to prevent anti-social elements from obstructing its legitimate action.

What did the court decide?

Injunction direction to Municipality to vacate interim order in Civil Court.

Rahim Bin Hussain Vs The state of Telangana and 4 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23761 0F 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Rahim Bin Hussain, S/o. Late. Hussain Bin Mohsin, Aoed about.46 vears. Occ. Business Fi/o. H.No.14-2-330, Kesar Bagh, Ghode- ki Kabar, t tanipJtty, Hyderabad-500 012

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State o{ Telangana, Represented by^principal Secretary, Municipal Ad ministration, Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶12

9reater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep by Commissioner Tank bund, Hyderabad

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation XIV Goshmahal, Hyderabad

¶14

Smt. Suman Daliya, Wo. Rajesh Daliya Aged about. 50 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H. No.'l 4-2 -3321 1 31 1, Gyanbagh Colony,'Hyderabad.

¶15

lgmqtfq Daliya, Wo. Jugat Datiya Aged about. 45 yedrs, bcc. Household R/o. H. No.'l 4-2 -3321 1 3, Gyanbagh Cotony Hyderabdd.

¶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/s or direction more particularly in the nature of mandamus declaring impugned action of the Respondents No.1 and 3 as illegal arbitrary unjust besides in utter violation of building rules there under and consequently direct the respondent no.'l and 3- to remove illegal construction over H.No.14-2-332113 an extent of 150 sq.yards, and H.No.14-2-33211311 an extent of^'150 Sq. yards, Gyanbagh Colony, Hyderabad under limits of GHMC, Circle XlV, Hyderabad.

¶18

NO:^'t OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section^'l 51 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 stop the raising of construction on .No.14-2-332113 an extent of 150 sq.yards, and H.No.14-2 -33211311 an extent of 150 Sq. yards, Gyanbagh Colony, Hyderabad under limits of GHMC, Circle XIV, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI JILLELLA RAJESWARA RAO

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URABAN DEVELOPMENT

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI N. ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI RAHUL BHATI The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

TH ' HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANI{ECiANTI

¶23

EEIT^PEIITIaN No. 23261 oF 2ol2

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Wnt Petition is lilecl sccking the [r i1,,u.il11, 11,]1sf

¶26

Io lssuc at u,rit, or(iel/s or (lir((.i()n more parl Lr r-rlrrly in the nature of \.nt of mandamus leclarir t; t)aatron of Rr: s Jr rldcnr Nos I zrr-rd 3:rs rJlega], arbitrary un Ltsl belld rs il Lltlcr viol:rt ln of buildrn! rules therctulder and con:requeltih, dtrecr tlte Re i l)( rd:nt No I ilncl 3 to renrove rileg;rl constrtrctior) , v(_.r II No 14 2^. 31 /73 an ex(cr1t of J50 sq. yards & IJ.No l4 2a..:t/t3/t an ex t aI]l o, l50 sq Iirr.ds, GyzrLrbagh Cokrnr,, H1.d|raba<l rrr k:r Lrnits of^(; FI ,lC, Circle XlV, Hyderabacl .rnd to pass su,.h r the, order /s as rnzr , lt d ren1ed jusl ilnd propc.^,'

¶27

¶28

:iri Jillella Rajeshrvar Rao, Iearrred colt.tsel for the petition(:r sublnits that petitioner gave represerlrrtiorrs dated 25.O:1.2O2'. Lrrrd^.18.04.2022 to the respondent Cor.poratron with regard to lre illegal and unauthorised construction r]tade by the unoflcial rislondents and the olficial responclents Iailed to tal{e any action uhich made the petitioner to come before lrrs Court. 3. A counter-affidavit has been file<l on )e.hal..of the respondenl (lorporation. Learnecl Standing Counsel S:j N. Ashok Kumar, sui: njts that on 2g.O3.2022. the Corp()ratior r.:ce ved the representlti )n of the petitioner and immediately, the lfficials inspected th:r sritt: and observed that the unofficral res.)ondents are proceeding with the constnlction of one comm )n building consistrng c,l sr ilt + thrce upper floors and pent hous I ilt 4rr, floor

¶29

¶30

¶31

by amalgamating^{two building permissionsinstead of permitted} two separate buildings^{in deviationto the sanctioned plan ltis} submitted that immediately,^{the official respondents have issued} show cause notice^{underSections 452(1)} 'rnd^{461(1) ofthe} Hyderabad Municipal^{CorporationAct, 1955 and thereafter,they} have taken up action^{for demolition with the assistance of the} police. It is further submitted^{that during the demolition,huge} mob has arrived to the^{said propertyand tried to interfere with} demolition. In spite of^{theirstrict resistance,the Corporation has} taken up demolition^{partiallyand stalledfurtherdemolition'} karned counsel submits^{thatthereafter,theunofficial} respondents have approached^{the City Civil Court,Hyderabad and} filed O.S.No. 275^{of 2022 and obtainedad interimorderdated} 22.04.2022 in I.A.No.^{790 of 2022, restrainingthe respondent} Corporation from interfering^{with the construcLionwork' It is also} submitted that in the^{guise of the sailorders,the unoffrcial} respondents are^{makingfurther construction by reconstructing} the demolished Portion.

¶32

+. In the entire counter,^{it is not statedwhy the} respondent Corporation^{has not takenstepsto get the interim} order vacated., whether^{a counter afhdavithasbeen filed before the} Court below or not.^{ThisCourthas obsewed.that thoughthe} Court below is^{givingan opportunity to the municipalcorporation}

¶33

before grant all interim orders, in several cases tlr.-^. are not propcrly r,:p: r:senting the matters which is conrpelling the Court below t,r pils{ o rders5. In this case, even according t(, thc r{:spr)ndent Corpor:rtion. lhe r-rnofficial respondents have made ccr sl rlrclion irl deviation^r:o rhe sanctioned plan. The respondenl Cl()rporation shall th erefor t:, take appropriate steps as expeditiously as p,rssible to hle courrte and get the interim order vacated. 6. I he Writ Petition is accordingly, disposer of. There shall be no or d( r as to cosl-s. 7. ( olry of this order shall be commulri,:rLtr. d ,o the Commissione :., Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corprrrirtion. He shall lo,rk Lnt : -he pending cases before the civil Court^,vhe re the Corporation s not taking appropriate steps t() get lbe irlterim orders r, aczrte 1 lbr years together. 8. 'I :re miscellaneous Applications, if any rhall stand

¶34

closed.

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSIS TP.NT REGISTRAR

¶37

'., SiECTION OFFICER

¶38

To,

¶39

1 The Principal St cretary, Municipal Administration, State of Telargana, Secretariat Hyd, rrabad.

¶40

2 The Commissio )e', Greater Hyderabad Municipal Cr:rpora:ion, l'ank bund, Hyderabad

¶41

3 The Deputy C:or rnrissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal^()orporation XIV Goshmahal Hyderabad

¶42

4 One CC tc Sri . illella Rajeswara Rao, Advocate IOPUC]

¶43

5 Two CCs to GF fcr Municipal Administration and Urban Devr:loFrment, High Coun for tt e State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT

¶44

6 One CC tc Sri N l,shok Kumar, SC for GHMC [OPUC] 7 One CC to Sri R ahul Bhati, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies

¶45

9.One Spare Cop'

¶46

GIP( ().

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/10/2022

ORDER

WP.No.23761^{of 2022}

¶51

+- o
({?;:7; Ih
/4
1() 2 4 Jl.I't 2iln
. i .
:. !
..

¶52

DISPOSING^{OF THE WI} ' WITHOUT^COSTS

¶53

IL
Sla

Rahim Bin Hussain v. The state of Telangana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahim Bin Hussain v. The state of Telangana and 4 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

Kommu Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Koyya Surya Kiran Vs State of Telangana

Vigneswara Welfare Association Vs The State of Telangana

Naluguri Sai Baba Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Mrs. Farheen Sultana Vs The State of Telangana

Gurrala Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana