Disposed

Mohd. Ayub., v. Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept.,Hyd., and 2 Others

Telangana HC18 Dec 2023WP/20042/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposal directed respondents not to dispossess or demolish the petitioner's property without following due legal procedure as contemplated under law. A separate interim order regarding notice was noted as sub judice.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed not to dispossess or demolish the subject property belonging to the petitioner without following due procedure as contemplated under law.

Mohd. Ayub., Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept.,Hyd., and 2… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

, : It j

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, TFE EIGHTEENTH DAYOF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOi 20042OF m 14

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohd Ayub, S/o- Late MoM Ghouse, H.No.13-5_565/fuS, Matrboob Cobny, Tappachabutra, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of rerangana,. Rep by its principre secretary, Revenue, secretariat Bldgs, Saifabad, Hiderabad'

¶13

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, at Nampalty

¶14

The Tahsildar, Asif Nagar Mandal, Vijay Nagar Co{rcny, Hyderabad District

¶15

The Greater Hvderabad , Muniopat Corporation (GHMC), Rep. by its Commissionerlsdl. Officer, Hydera6ad.

¶16

(R4 is Suo Motu impleaded as per C.O. dt. 1gt}7t2O14)

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Artic,le 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a wit, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus - decraring the acts of 3rd respondent in preventing the petitioner from making construction in the land covering House No..l3-5-s65/A/5, situated at Tappachabutra, Asifnagar and attempting to dispossess the petitioner there from as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 3oo- A of constitutiofl of lndia and consequently direct the respondents not ro interfere with peaceful possession of the petitbner from the said house in the interest of justice.

¶19

t II I I I I j

¶20

.A. NO:1 OF 201 MP. O:2 133 0F 2014

¶21

Petition under section '151 cpc pfaying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 3rd respondent not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the house No.13_5_565/4/5, old Sy.No.1/13, Asif Nagar Village, Town Survey No.1/2, Block L, Ward No.25, Tappachabutra, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad pending disposal of Wp in the interest of justice.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI ANANTHA ATHREYA, REp. FOR SRI VENUGOPALA RAO PASNOORU

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: AGp FOR REVENUE

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRt K.SIDDHARTF| RAO, SC FOR GHMC

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENruAS RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION N o-2OO42 of 2OL4

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:_

¶30

"...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the acts of 3ril respondent in preventing the petitioner from making construction in the land covering House No. 13-5-565/A/5 situated at Tappachabutra Asifnagar aIId attempting to dispossess the petitioner there from as iltegal arbitrary and violative of Article 3OO-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct tJ:e respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession of the petitioner from the said house in the interest ofjustice a;rd to pass...,

¶31

Heard Sri Anantha Athreya, learned counsei representing Sri P. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appe€ring for respondent Nos.l to 3, and learned Standing Counsel appearing [or respondent No.4.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of H.No.13-S-565/A/5, situated at Tappachabutra, Asif Nagar, admeasuring l lO square yards having purchased the same through registered sale

¶33

¶34

¶35

.,SR,J W.P.No.2OO42 of 2014

¶36

deed bearing document No.943 of 2OO7 and since then the petitioner has been in peacefr, possession and enjoyment of the subject property with absolute rights and he is paying property tax as well as electricity service tax and other taxes to the respective departments. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 without issuing any notice, is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property and also interfering with the construction, on the alleged ground that the subject property belongs to the Government, and the same is in clear violation of principles of natural justice.

¶37

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that as per the Town Survey Land Register entries the subject property belongs to the Govemment and the petitioner is not having any rights over the subject property

¶38

A perusal of the record reveals tl.at this Court, while ordering notice before admission, on L8.OZ.2Ol4, granted interim order directing respondent No.3 not to

¶39

¶40

.,SR,J V|.P.No.2OO42 of 2074

¶41

physically interfere with the construction of the house by the petitioner in the subject property except after giving appropriate notice and opportuni$r to show cause and the siid interim order is still in force.

¶42

The respondents have not l-rl,,ed any counter affidavit till date.

¶43

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue fairly submits that the respondents would follow due procedure as contemplated under law.

¶44

In view of the aforesaid submission, without going into the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess or demolish the subject property belonging to the peritioner i.e., H.No. 13-5-560 / A/5, situated at Tappachaburra, Asif Nagar, admeasuring 110 square yards without following due procedure as contemplated under law.

¶45

With the above direction, the Writ Petition srands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

.,SR,J

W.P.No.2OO42 of 2014

Pending miscellaneous applications,^{if any, shall}

¶50

stand closed.

¶51

SD/- K'^AMMA{'I ASSISTANT FEGISTRAR /TTRUE^COPY// u,, SECT]ON^OFFICER

¶52

to',.

¶53

,n" Principle^{Secretary' Revenue' Secretariat Bldgs' Saifabad'Hyderabad'} State of^Telangana'

¶54

The^{District Collector, Hyderabad District' at Nampally}

¶55

The^{Tahsildar' Asif Nagar Mandal' Vijay Nagar Colony' Hyderabad District'}

¶56

The Commissioner/Spl^{Officer' GreaterHyderabad MunicipalCorporation} (GHMC)' HYderabad'

¶57

One CC^{to SRI VENUGOPALA RAO PASNOORU' Advocate[OPUC]}

¶58

One^{CC to SRIK'SIDDHARTH RAO'SC FOR GHMC IOPUCI}

¶59

Two CCs^{to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court for the State of Telangana at} HYderabad [OUT]

¶60

Two^{CD CoPies}

BSR Glw

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1811212023

ORDER

{ g€ STATe o
l
IBtrA ?l?[ L)
o
.l:
T
t
3 p.'.:'. '

¶66

WP.No.20042 of 2014

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶68

WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

tO cedq
w..-
--t".\f^L<'

Mohd. Ayub., v. Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept.,Hyd., and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ayub., v. Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept.,Hyd., and 2 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

Sri Nazimuddin Farooqui Vs The State of A.P

Kandimalla Venkateswarlu Vs Sri.K.Ilambardi

Koppurapu Santoshini Vs Sri Dr. Shailander Kumar Jhosi

M/s New Steel City Merchants Welfare Society, Vs The Secretary (Revenue)

D. Satyanarayana Vs The Tahsildar

Managing Committee Dargah Hzt. Khaja Syed Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer