Disposed

Biragoni Srikanth v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Sept 2023WP/26435/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the demolition of leased shops at an agricultural market yard without adjudicating the merits, directing authorities to follow due process and issue notice before further action.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed without expressing opinion on merits; authorities directed to follow due process before demolition.

Biragoni Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:26435 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Biragoni Srikanth, S/o Rajaiah aged 42 years Occ. Business R/o No. 6-4-59, N.G. Colony Nalgonda town, Nalgonda District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration department Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

The Nalgonda Municipality, Rep through its Commissioner Nalgonda.

¶13

The Agricultural Market Committee, Represented through its Special Grade Secretary Nalgonda.

¶14

The Telangana Non-Gazetted, Agriculture Market Committee Employees Central Forum Society Nalgonda Rep by its President, B. Madhu Babu, K. Uma Maheshwar both are resident of Nalgonda, Neat NTR Statue Agricultural Market Committee Yard, Shop Nos. 1 , 2 and 3 Nalgonda.

¶15

The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda,

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandumus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in demolishing the leased Shop Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Agriculture Market Committee Yard, Nalgonda as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to Law and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to resort to demolition of Shop Nos. 1,2 and 3 of Agriculture Market Committee Yard, Nalgonda in view of the existence of lease period of the petitioner uplo 28-12-2024 in the interest of justice

¶18

I 1

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under section^{151 cPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} direct the respondents^{not to resortto coercive action/demolision of Shop Nos.1'} 2 &3 ot Agriculture^{Marketcommittee Yard, Nalgonda in view of the existence of} lease^period of^{the petitione r upto 28-12-2024 ir the interestof justicepending} disposal of the^{abovewrit petition}

¶21

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRl.D. RAMAKRISHIIA}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.l: GP FORMCPL ADMN AND URBAN} DEVELOPMENT

¶23

Counsel for the^{ResPondent No.2: SRI JAGAN i,IADHAVRAO'}

¶24

SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.3:SRI C. HARI PREETH} ' SC FOR AGRICULTURE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent^{No5.: GP FOR RE'/ENUE}

¶27

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.4: None Appeared}

¶28

The Court at the^{stage of admissionmade the following:ORDER}

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶30

Writ Petition N .26435 of 2023

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in demolishing the leased Shop Nos.l, 2 and 3 of Agricultural Market Committee Yard, Nalgonda, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to law.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department appearing for respondent No.1; Sri Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2; Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3; and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.5. With their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

¶34

This Court, by order, dated 22.09.2023, permitted the petitioner to effect service of notice on the 4h respondent by registered post with acknowledgment due or by hand delivery. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had taken out notice to the 4th respondent by RPAD and the postal delivery report is awaited. However, having regard to the relief sought in the Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that the stand of the 4tr' respondent may not have any bearing on the adjudication

¶35

¶36

of the present Writ Petition. In view ol' the sapie, this Writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

¶37

Petitioner contends that by entering into a Rental Agreement on 28.06.202i, he had taken on lease three:;hops bearing Shop Nos.1, 2 and 3 situated at Agricultural Market Committee Yard, Nalgonda, from the 4th respondent, for a period of three years; six months commencing from 28.06.2021 to 28.12.2024 on a monthty rent of Rs.5,000/- for each shop and had paiC advance amount of Rs.9,50,000/- refundable as securiry deposit to the 4th respondent; and that the 2nd responclent is now undertaking demolition of the petitioner's shops without issuing any notice or affoi'ding sufficrent time to the petttioncrr to vacate the same.

¶38

Petitioner further contends that the petitioner had been inducted as a tenant by the 4'h respondent and it had rrot received any notice from the 4th respondent either determrning the le ase or asking the petitioner to vacate for breach of any of the terms of the rental agreement, and thus, the action of the 2nd respondent in demolishing the shops of the petitioner is wholly illegal.

¶39

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3d respondent would submit that the authonties, by conducting a panchanama, had handed over the entir€ area of the Agricultural Market Committee Yard, Nalgonda, to the Nalgonda M unicipality-2nd respondent,

¶40

¶41

I!I ! Ii

¶42

for establishment of integrated vegetable and non-vegetable market, riCe G.O.Rt.No.466, Agriculture and Co-operation (MKTG.II) Department, dated 27.09.2O21.

¶43

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3'd respondent fufther submits that even before handing over the agricultural market yard to the 2nd respondent. the authorities have issued a notice on 06.01.2022 to the 4th respondent informing about the decision of the Government for handing over the land of the agricultural market yard to the 2nd respondent and directed the 4th respondent to vacate the premises within ten days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

¶44

Learned Standing Counsel would submit that since the^petitioner is claiming to be a tenant inducted by the 4th respondent, the notice issued to the 4th respondent would also bind the^petitioner and thus, the contrnuation of the petitioner in the said shops is to be construed only as an encroacher thereof.

¶45

I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

¶46

Though the respondents claim to have taken^possession the entire land to an extent of Acs.2.2B guntas of Agricultural Market Committee Yard, Nblgonda, to hand over to the Municipal Commissioner, Nalgonda, \ for establishment of integrated vegetable and non-vegetable market, vide

¶47

¶48

G.O.Rt.No.466 dated 27.09.2021, under which, the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by the 4th respondent is prior in point of time.

¶49

1 1. Though the petitioner claims that the term under the rental agreement is subsisting, it is not open for him to contend that the petitioner should not be evicted under the rental agreement, since the land on which the subject shops are constructed by the 4th respondent forms part of the land of the 3'c respondent and that 3'd respondent had granted permission for construction of aisociation building in the land admeasuring 100 square yards, wherein the said respondent had inducted the petitioner as a tenant by constructing shops.

¶50

lZ. Since the 3'd respondent by notice dated 06.01.2022 had called upon the 4th respondent to vacate the premises in ten days and also the fact that in the panchanama conducted on 08.01.2022, the said building is shown as handed over to the 2'i re:,pondent. continuation of the petitioner in the said premises wrll have tO be considered only by way of unauthorized occupation.

¶51

Be that as it may, it is settled positiln of law that even for evicting an encroacher, due process of law has to be followed, as has been held by

¶52

¶53

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lallu yeshwant Singh v/s. Rao Jagdish

¶54

Singh & Ors.l and Meghamala v/s. G.Narasimha Reddy^2.

¶55

In the light of the enunciation of raw, the authorities are required to follow due process of law by putting the petitioner on notice before taking further action of seeking to demorish the shops, whereat the petitioner is

¶56

carrying on his business, and take further steps in accordance with law.

¶57

Subject to the above observation, the Writ petition is disposed of. It is needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶58

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

¶59

stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶60

AtR 1968 SC 620 2(zoro) a scc 383

¶61

SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Municipal^{Administration departmentSecretariat,} T.S.,Hyderabad

¶66

The Commissioner Nalgonda Municipality,^Nalgonda.

¶67

The Special Grade Secietary^{Agricultural Market.Commiftee,Nalgonda.}

¶68

The District Collector, Nalqonda^{District, Nalgonda.}

¶69

TWO CCS tO GP FOR MCPL^{ADMN URBAN DEVELOPMENT} ,High^COUTTfOT the State of Telangana, at^Hyderabad [OUTI

¶70

Two CCs to GP FbR^REVENUE ,High^{Court for the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶71

One CC to SRl. D. RAMAKR|SHNA,Advocate IOPUC]

¶72

One CC to SRl. JAGAN^{MADHAV RAO, SC FOR MUNICIPALIry[OPUC]}

¶73

One CC to SRl. C HARI^PREETH ,^{SC FOR AGRICULTURE} [OPUC]

¶74

10.Two CD Copies

BM GJP er\q.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510912023

ORDER

1 $E ST Al{,
n o
t<
)
aL) 1B OEIMI
*
D5
.,'ij

¶80

WP.No.26435 ot 2023

¶81

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PE]IITION AT THE ADMISSION STAGE WITHOUT COSTS

¶82

t 0^,
r\o*'

Biragoni Srikanth v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biragoni Srikanth v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Sham Sunder Vs Ronald Rose, IAS

K. Rajitha Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Jahangeer, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. M Mounika Yadav Vs State of Telangana

Syed Nazeer Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Arumugam Senthil Kumar, Vs The state of Telangana