Fakruddin M.Khambaty v. Union of India., rep.by its Secretary,Ministry of Railways

Telangana HC9 Sept 2024WP/13403/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging demolition of properties by South Central Railway were heard together. Petitioners claimed illegal demolition without notice, while respondents alleged encroachment and claimed FIRAs were issued. The court closed the writ petitions, leaving claims for compensation and damages to be agitated before competent courts, as the necessity of evidence was not established ex

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions closed without costs; no interim stay granted; claims for compensation to be agitated before competent court.

Fakruddin M.Khambaty Vs Union of India., rep.by… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

IVIONDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF^SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos: 13403^{AND 14389 0F 2008}

¶7

W.P .No: 13403^{OF 2008}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Fakruddin M.Khambaty,^{s/o.Mohamedall KhambatryBusiness} _Resident^of Mohamedi Enclave,^{-Wellington Road,KearKirkee Gate,AOCCentre,} Secunderabad

¶10

Smt.Sakina F.Kambatrv,^{Wio FakruddinM Khambaty Housewife Resident of} Mohamedi^{Enclave.'Wellington Road,KearKirkee Gate,AOCCentre,}

¶11

' Secunderabad S. - No. Kiiser^{t A,} Durga K.Sihiwala,^{Viharcolony Gunrock S/o.Kurban Hussain Avenue Sahiwala Business Trimulgherry,Secunderabad Residentof} ^,^Plol + Smt.niieta" K.Sahiwata,^{W/o.Kaiser K Sahiwala Housewife Resident of Plot} ftt". t a, burga Vihar colony^{GunrockAvenue,Trimulgherry,Secunderabad}

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

Union of lndia.. rep.by^{its Secretary.Ministry of Railways, NewDelhi} 2. South Central^{Raiiway. rep by its Goneral Manager, Secunderabad} 5 Soutfr Central Railway,^{Rep6y its D E.N.Central, Secunderabad} 4 South Central Railway,^{rep.by its A.E.N.East, Secunderabad}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226^{of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filedtherewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue any writ order^{or direction preferablya writ in the natureof} mandamus declaring^{the actionof the petitioners in high handedly demolishinga} portion of the petitioners^{p.operty bearing lvlunicipal No'1 0-1 1-170133(old No.11-} 170/33) in sy.No.130^{ademasurrng 129.00 sq.yards or 107.85sq.meterssituated} at Fatehnagar^{tt/lainRoad, Under Fatehnagar village, Balanagar Mandal'} Kukatpally Municipality,^{Ranga Reddy District as illegal,arbitrary,violativeof} Articles, 14 and 300-4^{of the constitutionof lndia and consequentlydirectthe}

¶17

respondents not to further demolish or dispossess the petittoners in respect of the petitioners sa id property

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2008{WPMP. NO: 17294 0F 2008)

¶19

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 direct the respondents not to further demolish or dispossess the petitioners in respect of petitioners property namely property bearing Municipal 10-11-170133 (Old No.11-170133) in Sy.No.130 admeasuring 129.00 sq.yards or 107-85 sq.meters situated at Fatehnagar Main Road, under Fatehnagar village, Balanagar Mandal, Kukatpally IVlunicipality , Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the above writ petitron

¶20

.A. NO: 2 OF 2008 WPMP. NO: 21587 OF 2008

¶21

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners herein to fence the property bearing Municipal No.10-'l 1- 170/33(old No.11-170/33) in Survey No.130, admeasuring 129.00 sq.yards Or 107.85 sq meters, situated at Fatehnagar Main Raod, Under Fatehnagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. P. KEERTHANA REP SRt P. VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SANJEEV GTLLELLA

¶23

(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶24

W.P. NO: 14389 OF 2008

¶25

Between:

¶26

H.K.Adnan, S/o.S.K.Huseini Business resident of 142/C, lnnovation Residency, Prenderghast Road, Secunderabad. ...PETITIONER

¶27

AND

¶28

1 9nigt',^{of lndia, represented by its Sdcretary, Ministry of Railways. New Delhi.} ? iorll^{Central Railway, represented by its Generaltvlanager, S'ecnderabad.} ! Qoutl'r^{Central Railway, represented bi its D.E.N., CenkaiS'ecnderabad.} 4. South Central Railway, represented by its A.E.N., East, Secnderabad.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

..-"{ .r.!*ae-

¶31

Petition under Article^{226 o1 the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High court maybe} pleased to issue any writ,^{order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of} Mandamus declaring^{the actionof the respondents in high handedlydemolishing} a portion of the^{petitioners property bearingNo.10-1 1-170134,consisting of} Ground Floor and^{First Floor in surveyNo. 130. admeasuring1 17.00sq. yards or} 97.81 sq. meters,^{situatecj at Fatehnagar Village, Balanagar' GHMC, Kukatpally} circle, Ranga Reddy^{District, as illegal, arbitrary violativeof Articles 14 and 300-A} of the constitution^{of lndia and consequenttydirect the respondentsnot to further} demolishordispossessthepetitionerinrespectofthepetitionerssaidpropeny NO: 1 OF 2008 PMP. NO: 18584 0F²⁰⁰⁸

¶32

Petition under section^{15'1CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to} direct the^{respondents not to further demolish or dispossess the petitionerin} respect of^{petitioner's property'namely ,bearing No 10-1 1'170134' consistingof} Ground Floor and First^{Floor in survey No. 130,admeasuring1 17,00 sq. yardsor} 97.81 sq.^{meters, situated at Fatehnagar Village,Balanagar,GHMC'Kukatpally} Clrcle,RangaReddyDistrict,pendingdisposaloftheaboveWritPetition NO: 2 OF 008 WPMP, NO:^215520F 008

¶33

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin lhe^{affidavit filed in support of the petition,the HighCou( may be pleased to} permit the^{pelitioner herein to fence the petitioner's property namely house} bearing^{No.10-11-170134consistingof Ground Floorand 1st Floor in sy.No.130} gdmeasuring117.00Sq.yardsor97'slsqmeterssituatedatFatehnaga(V) Balanagar^{GHMC Kukatpallycircle Ranga Reddy District pending disposalof the} wP

¶34

Q6runsel^{for the Petitioner: Ms' P. KEERTHANAREPSRI P' VENUGOPAL}

¶35

Counsel for^{the Respondents:SRI SANJEEVGILLELLA} (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT^COUNSEL)

¶36

The^{Courtmadethe following: COMMON ORDER}

¶37

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶38

WRIT PETITION Nos.134O3 and 14398 of2OO8

¶39

COMMON ORDER:

¶40

Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by way of this common order.

¶41

W.P.Nos. 134O3 of 2008 and 14389 of 2008 zrre filed

¶42

seeking the following relief

¶43

"....1o issue ong ui| order or direction preferablg a wit in the nature ol' mandamus declaing the action of the petitioners in high handedlg demolishing a portion oJ the petitioners propertg beaing Municipal Nos.lO-11-17O/33 (Old No.11-170/33) and 1O-11 170/34 consisting of Ground Floor and First Floor in Sg.No.130 admeasuring 129.OO sq. gards or 107.85 sq. meters and 117.00 sq. Aards or 97.81 sq. meters situated at Fotehnagar Main Road, Under Fatehnagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Kukatpatly Muniapalitg, Ranga Reddg Distict as illegal, arbitrary, uiolati,e of Articles 14 and 3004 of the Constitution oJ Indta and consequenUy direct the respondents not to furTher demolish or dispossess lhe petitioners in respect of the petitioners said propertg. . .'

¶44

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

¶45

The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners and possessors of property bearing Municipal No.10,11-170133 (Old

¶46

I\ II

i I i

i I I I I I

''4t1,

No. 11-i7O/33) consisting of^{Ground Floor and First Floorin} Sy.No. 130 admeasuring^{129.00sq. yards and MunicipalNo'10-} 1l-l7ol34 117.0-0 sq.^{yards situatedat FatehnagarMainRoad,} under Fatehnagar^{Village, Balanagar Mandal, Kukatpally} Municipality, Ranga^{ReddyDistrict,having purchased the same} by way of registered sale^{deeds bearing documentNos'53O3 of} 1990 and 199 of 2008.^{It is the further case of the petitioners} that the said^{properties are abutting to the railwaylane leading} from Secunderabad to^{Shankarpallyand the respondent} authorities without issuing^{any notice have high-handedly} demolished the said^{propertieson 19.06.20o8.}

¶52

Ms. P. Krishna Keerthana,^{learned counsel appearingfor} the petitioners,^{vehemently contendedthat the petitionershave} purchased the said^{properties by virtue of registered sale deeds,} and the action on^{the part of the respondents in demolishing} the existing structures^{withoutissuing any notice amounts to} violation of principles of^{natural justice'}

¶53

A counter affidavit has^{beenfrled by the respondents} stating that the properties of^{the petitioners are encroaching the} railway property between^{Moula Ali-sanathnagarbypassline} and the said encroachments^{were identifiedby the Railways} after a joint survey as per the^{plan/sketchof the- a"li."r*t..} ,1, 1 /\

( I

t : i

)

)

Director, Revenue Survey and Land Recorcls, Ranga Reddy District and the said plan has been hled as annexure R- 1, wherein it clearly indicates the extent of land owned by the Railways abutting the railway track and hence, the petitioners are liable to be evicted from the said premises. It is further stated that the respondents have issued notices in F.orm-A on lO.02.2006 and Form-B on O3.09.2007, but the petitioners have not submitted any explanation in support of their claims that the said properties would not fall within the boundaries of the Railways and therefore, the respondents have proceecled to demolish the said properties in accordance with law.

¶61

Except hling of the registered sale deeds, the petitioners have not fileci any documents or the plans approved by the Municipal Corporation in support of their claim, so as to examine from what date the structures are existing in the said premises and to examine whether the respondents have followed due process of law before demolishing the structures and the said issues can be examined only after producing evidence.

¶62

In vierv of the above, these two writ petitions are closed leaving it open to the petitioners to agitate their claims before the competent Court for claiming compensation and damages, if the respondents have demolished structures illegally without

¶63

¶64

following the procedure laid down under law. There shall be no order as to costs

¶65

9 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petrtions shall stand closed.

Bt<

kP.

HI GH CO^U R]-

CV BRJ

DAre o: og /og /zoz+

i .,,'
o )'
t)
* ,? 7 tttl ry1 t.,f l
! 1.,
,<br>l a Lir. !)
v

¶74

ConMorl^ORDER

¶75

VJP.No's. t3+o3 AND /439ct oF 2o0B

¶76

cLoS/N6^{Bor4THE NRtrPertTtOr't)} W^t'rH ouT^Cosrs

¶77

tr^b?\d' lJ.iqlllzt'

Fakruddin M.Khambaty v. Union of India., rep.by its Secretary,Ministry of Railways

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fakruddin M.Khambaty v. Union of India., rep.by its Secretary,Ministry of Railways

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thangeda Suramma, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Ranaveni Vanitha Vs Sri. Ramakrishna

Kotagiri Usha Rani Vs Sri. Kasi Reddy

Sultan Ul Uloom Education Society and 2 others Vs The Pharmacy Council of India,and another

M/ s Skr Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

Obaid Ur Rehman Vs M. Dana Kishore, IAS