Sri K.Vittal Maharaj, S/o Prabhakar Maharaj v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC11 Oct 2022WP/26254/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order sets aside a notice dated 28.08.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of GHMC for revocation of LRS proceedings, holding him incompetent to do so. The Court directed the respondents to issue a fresh notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 28.08.2013 set aside; respondents directed to issue fresh notice and follow due process.

Sri K.Vittal Maharaj, S/o Prabhakar Maharaj Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 26254 OF 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

't. Sri K.Vittal Maharaj, S/o Prabhakar Maharaj, Occ: Pradhan Poo.iari (Chief Priest) Sri Santhoshi Matha Temple, Hastinapuram North, Sagar Road, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

Smt.K.Kalpana Bai, Wo.K.Viftal Maharaj, Occ: Housewife, H.No.8-7-5216112, Hasthinapuram North, Near Santhoshimatha Temple, Sagar Road, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶9

Sri K.Mahadev Maharaj, S/o.K.Vittal Maharaj, R/o H.No.B-7-52l61/2, Hasthinapuram North, Near Santhoshimatha Temple, Sagar Road, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶10

Sri K.Mukund Maharaj, S/o.K.Vittal Mahara.j, R/o H.No.8-7-5216112, Hasthinapuram North, Near Santhoshimatha Temple, Sagar Road, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶11

Sri K.Murari Maharaj, S/o.K.Vittal Maharaj, R/o H.No.B-7-5216112, Hasthinapuram North, Near Santhoshimatha Temple, Sagar Road, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

't. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, K.B.Nagar, Circle lll, Hyderabad

¶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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, declare the notice dt.28.08.2013 issued by lhe 2nd respondent, which was issued basing on the earlier notices dt.03.07.2013 and 08.08.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent. without consrdering petitioners' reply notices dt.10.07.2013, 26 08 2013 and 30.08.20'13 and the documents annexed to those reply notices, as illegal, arbitrary, against our

¶18

¶19

fundamental rights^guaranteed under^{the constitution of lndia under Art.21 and} 300-4 and^principles of natural^{justice and consequently set-asidethe sameand} pass

¶20

.A. NO: 1 OF 2013 PMP. NO:3 F 2013

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court maybe pleased to} grant stay of all further proceedings in^pursuance of the^{impugned notice} Ot.Zg.Og.ZOt: issued by the^{2nd respondent, pending disposalof the above Writ} Petition and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. B SHIVA^KUMAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: SAMPATH^{PRABHAKAR REDDY(SCFORGHMC)}

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

I{ON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTT

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 26254 of 2OL3

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ petition is hled seeking the following relief:

¶29

"..... to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declare the notice dt.28.O8.2O13 issued by the 2"0 respondent which was issued basing on the earlier notices dt.O3.O7.2O13 and O8.O8.2O13 issued by the 2"a respondent without considering petitioners reply notices dt.1O.O7.2O13, 26.Oa.2O13 and 30-08.20 13 and the documents annexed to those reply notices, as illegal, arbitrary, against our fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India under Art.2l and 3OO-A and principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the same and --....

¶30

Mr. B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits Dy. Cornmissioner has issued notices for cancellation of the LRS proceedings without approval of the higher aurhorities. It is stated that there is a temple called Sri Santhoshimatha Temple at Hastinapuram North, Sagar Road, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Manda[, Ranga Reddy District and the petitioner is pradhan poojari to the said temple. It is submitted that one pindi Venkat Reddy as devotee has donated an extent of Ac. l.OOGts for construction of Matha Temple by way of registered Gift Deed on O9. I l. 1983 in lirvour of the petitioner and thereafter, they have constructed the temple in a tin shed in some part of the land and later on, a pakka building was constructed and adjacent to the temple, they have ellso constructed a dwelling house lor the accommodation of poojari and remaining land is left open and the said part of open land w.as

w.P.No.26254 of 2013

regularized by^{proceedings dated 23-Ol -2OL2and that afterone} year, the Dy. Commissioner has issued^{the show cause notice} dated 28.O8.2O13 for^{revocation of LRS proceedings. He submits} that the competent authority^{to cancel the LRS proceedingsis the} Commissioner, but not^{the Dy. Commissioner. On this ground} alone, the said notice issued^{to the petitioner is liable to be set} aside.

¶35

Mr. Sampath Prabhakar^{Reddy, learnedstanding cor.rnselfor} the respondent municipality^{a-lsodoes not disputethe fact that the} notices are issued by the^{Dy. Commissionerald he isnot} competent authority^{to issue the same.}

¶36

In view of the above, the impugned^{notice dated 28.O8.2O13} in the writ petition is set^{asideand the respondents are at libertyto} issue a fresh notice and to follow^{the due process in accordance} with law. There shall be^{no order as to costs.}

¶37

The miscellaneous applications,^{if a-rry shallstand} automatical[,v closed.

¶38

sol-t. Nacnuxsnlvil //TRUE coPY//^{ott'Ifft1l_\11T} r,.-

¶39

SECTION OFFIEEA

¶40

To, 1 Il:"?"tmltt'"ner' Greater Hvderabad Municipal corporation, Tank Bund, 2 The Deputy Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, K.B.Nagar, Circle lll, Hydeiabad 3. 9n" 99^{to SRt B SHTVA KUMAR} Advocate tOpUCt 4. one CC to SRt SAMpATH pRABiiAK{n-n"rtioviSb F.RGHMC) Advocate [oPUC] 5. Two CD Copies 6, One Spare Copy Jm GJ P vlt

¶41

HIGH COURT

¶42

DATED:1111012022

¶43

/ra::-.-
HE S jtA r€
o.
,:.
.r
;1
14 ttll 2m
,. i,,
i. **.;)

¶44

ORDER

¶45

WP.No.26254 of 2013

¶46

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶47

WITHOUT COSTS

¶48

O
(-.
,4 \Q,, \T

Sri K.Vittal Maharaj, S/o Prabhakar Maharaj v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K.Vittal Maharaj, S/o Prabhakar Maharaj 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

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

Smt. Sukhavasi Lalitha , Lalithamma Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

S. Shiva Rama Krishna Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

A. Ashok Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others