Disposed

Keval Chand Bhuriwale and another v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC6 Apr 2022WP/8236/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged the Boduppal Municipal Corporation's attempt to demolish a shed without notice. The Court dismissed the plea for an immediate stay but directed the petitioners to submit an explanation to the demolition notice as a show cause notice within two weeks. Respondents must then pass appropriate orders within one week. No coercive steps are to be taken pendin

What the court decided

AI extract

Keval Chand Bhuriwale and another Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY,^{THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE LALITHAKANNEGANTI}

¶5

WRIT PETI^{TIONNO:8236 0F 2022}

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

1 . Keval Chand^{Bhuriwale,S/o.Late Sri KeshavlalJi' Aged about61- years,} ' ijiller.i""ls, nyo.H.No.rS-A-iAln, Gope Nivas, Behind Osmania General Hospital, Afzalgunj,^HYderabad.

¶8

Janqiti Srinivas,^{S/o.Chandramouli,aggd 42 years, Occ Business'} ' ivi']'sj-goiij,"plii r.r".7b, Litirrmi ttasar-coLo1v, N-ear Grace Mission Hish School, Bocjuppal-500092,^{Medchal Malkajgiri District'}

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

1 ThestateofTelangana,tVlunicipalAdministrationandUrbanDevelopment oup"rir"n1, nep.^{5v its'Principbl Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad'}

¶12

The Additional^{Collector (Local Bodies), Medchal Malkajgiri District at} lriledchal.

¶13

3 Boduppal Municipal^{Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Boddupal'} Medchal^{-MalkaigiriDistrict.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under^{Article226 ol lhe constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filedtherewith, the High court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction,^{particularly one in the nature of writ of} Mandamus, declaring^{the action of the 3rd respondentin trying to demolishthe} structures of the shed^{constructedby the 2nd petitionerin Plot No.31,32, 53, 54} inSy.No.16B/PsituatedatBoduppalunderthelimitsofBoduppalMunicipal corporation without^{notice,without opportunity of being heardas the sameis} illegal, arbitrary and^{violative of Article 21 and 300-Aof the constitutionof lndia} and consequently direct^{the respondents not tointerferewith peaceful} possession of the subject^plots without^{due process of law'}

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the Highcourt may be pleasedto} direct the respondents^{not tO demolishthe structuresof the shed constructedby} the 2nd^petitioner in^{Plot No.31} ,32,^{53,54 in sy.No.168/Psituatedat Boduppal} under the limits of^{Boduppal Municipalcorporation without following due} procedure of law, pending disposal^{of the writ petition'}

¶18

Counsel for the^{Petitioners:SRl.BHANU MURTHYBALA}

¶19

counset for the Respondent^{No.1 & 2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION} AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4: SRI G' SATYAN REDDY' SC FOR MC}

¶21

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶22

THE HONORABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶23

W.P.No.8236 of 2022

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.3 in trying to demolish the structures of the shed constructed by petitioner No.2 in Plot Nos.31,32,53,54 in Sy.No.'168/P, situated at Boduppal under the limits of Boduppal Municipal Corporation, without notice and opportunity of being heard, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. B. Bhanu Murthy, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. G. Satyam Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is an absolute owner and possessor of the aforesaid plots having succeeded from his ancestors and he has executed a lease deed dated 04.02.2021 in favour of petitioner No.2 in relation to the aforesaid plots admeasuring 750 sq. yards for establishment of Badminton Coaching Centre by constructing a shed. He submits that respondent No.3 has straightaway issued notice dated 09.07.2021 to remove/demolish the said shed within 3 days, failing which the same will be sealed departmentally. Learned counsel submits that when petitioner No.2 has filed an application before the Additional Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, the same was forwarded to respondent

¶29

LK, J W P No 8236 of 2022

¶30

No.3 to take necessary action, but all of a sudden, the staff of respondent No.3 visited the^property and trying to demolish the structures of the shed. He submits that the highhanded action of respondent No.3 without issuing any notice and without following due process of law is illegal and arbitrary and hence, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court.

¶31

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that if the petitioners submit an explanation to the impugned notice dated O9.07.202'1 , the respondent Corporation will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶32

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit an explanation to the impugned notice dated 09.07.2021 treating it as a show cause notice within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on receipt of such explanation, respondent No.3 shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one week thereafter. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken against the subject^property. No order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous petltions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall

¶34

stand closed.

¶35

¶36

SDi.L.SIVA PARVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// L li'.r

¶37

To,

¶38

1 The Principal Secretary, lVunicipal Administration and L gepartment, State of Telan( 2 heAddtonarco,ector,.r%*{"'ff ;:illjj,.*1i#Hd;:H:'::'""

¶39

The Commissioner,^{Boduppal Municipal Corporation, Boddupal, Medchal -} lvlalkaioiri District.

¶40

4 On; it to Sri Bhanu^{trilurthyBala,Advocate} tO?lql

¶41

5 i; Cc.'I" Gifoi^{MuniclpitAdministrationjnd Urban Development'High} I Court for the State^{of Telangana.} [OUT]

¶42

A 6.6'Cc ti, sri6. sityan^{ndoov, sc foi lrlunicipalcorporation [oPUC]}

¶43

Two CD Copies 8. One Spare CoPY

GJ SB

dA?

HIGH GOURT.

DATED:0610412022

"\ \

ORDER

6i
f.
I
[ 2 JUt ?t]'l?
r)
.&
* DESPAT

¶52

WP.No.8236 of 2022

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

0 0,\e-&\rd*

¶55

Keval Chand Bhuriwale and another v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Keval Chand Bhuriwale and another v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Ramachander Vs The State of Telangana

Putta Gouramma Vs The State of Telangana

Abbasani Shiva Kumar , Suresh Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Mateen Ansari, And Another Vs Sri. Zainuddin Khan, And Another

Sri Balvinder Singh Vs Directorate of enforcement

M/s. Scientia Infocom India Private Limited Vs Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority