Dismissed

Brij Gopal Fathepuria v. Defence Estates Officer Sec.Bad and Anothe

Telangana HC23 Dec 2022WP/4650/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Brij Gopal Fathepuria challenging an order quashing his eviction from public premises. The court noted the case's 26-year pendency and lack of representation by the petitioner, directing only a specific notice period for eviction without creating a fresh cause of action.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs. It is directed that if the respondent intends to carry out eviction, four weeks notice shall be given to the petitioner to leave the premises on his own.

Brij Gopal Fathepuria Vs Defence Estates… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 465 0 0F 1996

¶8

Between:

¶9

Brij Gopal Fathepuria,S/o Pannatat Fathepuria, aged 46 years, Occ. Business,R/o. H.No. 179, Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

¶10

..,PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Defence Estates Officer, Andhra Pradesh Circle, Secunderabad-3. 2 Government of lndia. Ministry of Defence. rep. by^jts Secretary, New Delhi.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 essentially in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction, declaring the order passed by the Learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. rn C.M.A.No. 239 of 1992, dated 17-1-1996 and consequential notice issued by the respondent No..1 in proceedings No. 211188/EV/Sy. No. SZ2tLC-95t37 ,dated^.l-3-96 as void being illegal and u nconstitutiona I and pass such other and further orders as thii Honourable Court deems fit and proper^jn the circumstances of the Case.

¶15

l.A. NO:'1 OF'1996(WVMP. NO : 2400 0F 1996)

¶16

Between:

¶17

Defence Estates Offrcer, Andhra Pradesh Circle. Secunderabad-3.

¶18

Government of lndia, tr/inistry of Defence, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi.

¶19

... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶20

AND

¶21

Brij Gopal Falhepuria,S/o Pannalal Fathepuria, aged 46 yeais, Occ: Business,R/o. H.No. 179, Bowenpally. Secunderabad.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶23

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 vacate the lnterim order in W. P. M. P.5673/96, dt. 17.O4.1996, pending disposal of the above W P

¶24

l.A. NO; 2 OF 1996(WpMp. I

¶25

that n the circumstances stated stay. ar rr.rther p;;;.i;;lT';J,.,1",ffJ,:",irfiJ,:rj l_ourt mav b! ;;;;;';; ]:,^{in. ProceeornssNo ilre'srevisyN;";),)Lb_r;rssuedbv the rs5p6n6sn1} drsposal of the wnt petrtion^--'-''v'rrv ')'ztL'-v5/J/, dated 1-3-96 pendrng Counset for the perition", , g. J.ygTIlI|RAN (NONE APPEARED) : Ei?"^ [%pi_3fi po n de n ts : prn. onoi piiVl!,riii,lro *. D y. s oL I c r ro R The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL^BHUYAN

¶27

AND

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE C,V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.465O of L996

¶30

ORDER: t'jer the Hoft'ble the Chip,f Justice Lt el BhuyanJ

¶31

None has appeared for the petitioner on cal1, though Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputl' Solicitor^General of India is present for the respondents.

¶32

By filing this petition under Article 226 ol^the Constitution of India petitioner seeks^quashing of^order dated 17.01.1996 passed by the Chief Judge, City^Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.M.A.No.23B of^1992.

¶33

From the material papers we find that respondent No.l had passed an order daled 22.07.1992 under^the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)^Act, 1971, against' the petitioner terming him as^arr unauthorised occupant and making unauthorised construction in disputed iand. Against the said^order, \ petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Judge, City Civil

¶34

I I

¶35

¶36

Court, Hyclerabad, being^{C'M'A'No'238of 1992' By the} order dated 17 .01..7996,^{the appealwas dismissed with} costs. While dismissing^{the appeal, learned Chief Judge} held that the disputed^{land was apublicpremises} belonging to the Defence^{Department'Petitioner wasaI1} unauthorised occupant^{as he had failed to show that it was} his private property.

¶37

This case is pending^{before this Court for the last} twenq. six years.^{Even docketproceedingsare not} available. None has appeared^{for the petitioner also in the} hearing today. I

¶38

In the circumstalces'^{we dismiss the writ petition'} However, lt,e direct that^{since this is an old matter, if} respondent No.l intends to^{carry out eviction in terms of} the order dated 22.07.1992 as^{aflirmedby the appellate} Court on 17.0l.1996, four weeks^{notice may be given to} the petitioner to leave the public premises^{on his own'} However, w-e make it clear that such notice^isonly consequential and would not give rise to any fresh cause^of action to the petitioner. \

¶39

I I

¶40

Subject to the above, writ petition is dismissed.

¶41

Miscellaneous applications pending, if an1,, sha11

¶42

star-rd closed. However, there sha1l be no order as to costs.

¶43

SD/-B . CHANDRA^PRAKASH ASS ISTANT ISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICE^R

To,

1 One CC to M/s.^{G. J} 2 One CC to Sri Gadi #ilt[l{iLrA:fSAF,l?'.3E1,"'^{cenerar orr ndia(opUC)} 3 Two CD Copies

EDS BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:23 t12t2022

ORDER

1{E ST4 14:
q
()
2 3 ,li!'i 2ffi

¶53

WP.No.4650 of 1996

¶54

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

u5 (5) (ZP'>

¶56

01# rvtl <sup>'y'>

Brij Gopal Fathepuria v. Defence Estates Officer Sec.Bad and Anothe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Gopal Fathepuria v. Defence Estates Officer Sec.Bad and Anothe

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

Mohd. Rafeeq Ahmed Vs The Union of India

Principal Commissioner of Customs, Vs M/s. Edelweiss Commodities Services Limited

Smt K.Madhavi Vs Union of India

M/s. Lpl Infrastructures Ltd. (Formerly M/s. Lakshmi Sree Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessments)

M/s Venkataramana Furnitures and Components Ltd., Vs Superintendent of Central Excise

K.P.Steels Limited, Secunderabad, Vs The Commissioner of Customs and Central Exise