Disposed

Mr. Juda Irudiyanathan v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Telangana HC6 Sept 2024WP/24849/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court treated part of an impugned demolition order as a show cause notice due to lack of prior inquiry. Petitioners were directed to submit explanations enclosed with documents. Writ petition was disposed of without prevention of coercive action until explanations are considered.

What did the court decide?

Treat impugned order as show cause notice; permit petitioners to submit explanations; direct respondents not to take coercive action.

Mr. Juda Irudiyanathan Vs Secunderabad Cantonment Board — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t^32s6 t

¶2

F rE LA N GA NA '' "' " ",:::j,; iiir,:iiJir

¶3

'tm'*m"xy^,^a#.:,il;.y,.s-

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTCE C.V. BHASKAR

¶6

REDDY

¶7

WRITPETtTl ON NO: 24 Between: 849 OF 2024

¶8

,;.{1T,e#f.'J:ffi^{.,in?."d::fg$:t#,..+}#"r"T;n&,ijt} #:if",:seru;?]yt#r?";^{jd5lli#Tiii^nn#x,,s,:H.,",r"r,il}

¶9

.rut*H';:$ilIf^{,'$ss;f,{"?l"oall'$}"?'ffi-ss,.,""e,#x:?:d}

¶10

"i#r,i:,H:llih:.t:t'sfi

¶11

si#*i##j{\3:,?ir."ff :#:?

¶12

I-,,ffi :'fi ,{*t#,##i-$jffi,,.j,'f.,#,!;,1",i?r.;

¶13

^$,:.Tl{i:ft 6. Smt B. KAVTTA GUPTA

¶14

9""?,,."#,h.1ffi^{',fl ;K.;f"lt,3^.?o}rJ^J?r?y;11%?i,r3::j,i

¶15

7, MR, POTTU JANARDHI imployee,^R/o , *o^{*t.-?orI SWAMY'.agedabor.rt 54 years. occ-} Govt tetangana State. r-c-/b' Laxmi Nagar, pi"t"t, '5eiln"Je"r"fJjl

¶16

S Smt B V SUJATHA !\

¶17

!*m""";i#Jg{"-:i'"'?'"i-',}'Yf 3'iiis.16ir',;nl5li?;

¶18

"i:ru:_m;Usgi;?#:flJ]X.T,3ffi 9mt. Chandrakala lnnani

¶19

Tf'fi :,,i,:i"B:,i?$:i#"8:fl^.

¶20

'oS;f;#,,t'01,'"ll1o3:lYl^{RED^DY's/o LArE} B Y^YFrtmr REDDy, vrdva raya Fish6rpura, o,.i[l [?.h"t}jl:B'r'o^{*"HN o.} aora r"r.rl;; i;;;;y;

¶21

11 Sri NUSETTT MOHAN t(R]lHIl S/o Sri N VENKATESWARA RAo. aoed i,1X11"',:'li'l'.:[',Ttllmm:,lti:;tS,,H*lll:6]l'EX;,i,fl 3l

1 I i I I

l I

I I l I I I

"E*,*t,33,1iilf il",!'^'?SlHi"ri",r"'st:':lt'ff :

¶26

AND

¶27

¶28

:lr'i+rlx.tm:.,l,ffiitr*;-,-#**#"

¶29

¶30

tl*'fr^{ifufr+*';Iitrll?:trrisa: #'} *::: -, :,

¶31

¶32

Petition^{Under Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndra praying that in the} filed^{therewith'the High Court may be} circumstances^{stated in} pleased^{to issue} "^{W'it' o'0"''} 'n"-^{'n'd"rt o'0""unOmore particularlyone in the nature of} WRIT^{oF MANDAMUSd""'t'ing the action of l st respondentin issuing} impugned^{Notice Lr tto relH"lt3-9-83M/MPALLY/1543Dated29082024} carryout^{demolition of 18 flats and flat no 401 of Pent House of SITARAMA} RESTDENoY,^{westlvlarredpailywithin 15 daysas iilegar,improper, arbitrary'} unconstitutionar^{and against the princrplesof naturarjustice, consequently direct} the respondents^{not to demolishany structuresin respect of 18 flats and flat} no.401 of^{Pent House of SITARAIVIA RESIDENCY'West Marredpally}

¶33

I.A.N^{O:1oF 2024}

¶34

in the circumstances^statedin Petition^{UnderSection 151 CPC praying that} Court^{maY be} Pleased^{to staY} the affidavit^{filedin supportof the petitron'the High} Notrce Lr^{No. EB/HNO 3-9-} of all further^{proceedingsin respectof impugned} espondent^{carryout demolition} 834/V.MPALLY/'1543^{Dated 29.08 2024 of the 1st r} of 18 flats^{and flat no 401 of Pent House of Sl} TARAMA^{RESIDENCYWeSt} Marredpally^{pending disposal of the above writ petition}

¶35

Counsel for^{the Petitioners : SRI G'M'RAVI KUMAR}

¶36

counsel for the Respondents : -

¶37

The Court made the following ORDER

¶38

I I I I !I t I

¶39

¶40

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24849 of 2024

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of^the Constitution of India, is frled by^{the petitioner seeking the} following relief:

¶43

"......1o itsue a Wnt ordet orders and thorc parliculn y one in the nolure of WRIT OF MANDAMUS^(teclaring the action oI tst resPondent^{in issuinginpugned Notice Lr'No} ER/H.NO. 3-9-83/W. MPALLY/ l5⁴ 3 Doted 29.0.8.^{2021carryoutdcnolition of lSJlars arul} llat^{no. 401 oI Pent House oISITARAMARESIDENCY,West Moftedpalljh)ithinl5 davs os} itlegall, improper, arbitrary, unconsl utionol onrl^{agarnst theprinciples ofnoluroljuslice} consequenrly direct the^respondenls nol lo demolish^{onystructures in resPed of lEJlat\ nnd} llat^{no. 401oI Pent HouseofSITARAMA RESIDENCY,lfest Marredpally, and to pos.t..."}

¶44

The petitioners claim to be the owners of^different flats in the building known as "Sri Seetha^Rama Residency", situated at premises No.3-9-83 in^Sy.No.8 situated at Samrat Colony, West^Marredpally, Secunderabad Cantonment, Hyderabad,^{having purchased} the same through registered sale^deeds by^{payingvalid sale} consideration to the vendors. It is^{their case that the} respondents, without issuing any notice,^without conducting any enquiry and^without allowing^the peti(ioners for seeking regularizations as per Section 248 of

cvBR,J Wp_2a849 2024

-r{.isF . ,, *.

Cantonment Act, 2006, issued the impugnr:d notice directing the petitioners to vacate the^premises within¹⁵ days to carryout demolition of the alleged un.ruthorized construction. It is the further case of the petitioners that they were not made as party respondents in W.P.No.1O73 of 2Ol9 and the said writ petition has been hled by third parties making allegations against the petitioners and their vendors that they have constructed illega-l and unauthorized constructions over Sy.No.8 of Friends Colony, West Marredpally, Secunderabad

¶50

A careful examination of the order passed by this Court, dated 31.08.2023 in W.P.No.1O73 of 2O19 would reveal that this Court while disposing of the 'a'rit petition directed the respondents to follow due process of 1aw for removal of illegal ald unauthorized constructions. However, on reading of the impugned order shows that the respondent have not issued any notice to the: petitioners herein, except directing them to remove the alleged illegal construction within 15 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order.

CVBR,J wp 24t49 2024

-.-v3av
.)..y'
}:,

Be that as it may, since it is the case of the petitioners that the impugned orders are not preceded by al enquiry contemplated under the provisions of the Contonment Act, to enable the petilioners to submit explanation and also to file appropriate application seeking regularization in terms of Section 248 of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that ends of the^justice would be met, if the impugned order is treated as show cause notice and the petitioners are allowed to submit explanation to the said show cause notice, by duly enclosing all the documents. On filing such explanation, respondents are directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate reasoned order. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive action of removal of alleged constructions^made in^Sy.No.8 of Samrat Colony, West^{Marredpally,Secunderabad} Cantonment, Hyderabad.

¶55

With the above observations,^{this writ petitionis} disposed of.^{There shall be no order as to costs'}

¶56

CVBR,J \ |] 24849_2024

¶57

¶58

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitiot-rs, if any,

¶59

¶60

pending shall stand closed.

¶61

SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// u

¶62

SECTION OFFICER

¶63

To 1. The Chief Executrve Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Secunderabad.

¶64

One CC to SRI G.M.RAVI KUMAR, Advocate [OpUC]

¶65

Two CD Copies

SA LS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610912024

!|E SLr
2 4 Etr 2Al
.'
:/
- -.:/'

ORDER

WP.No.24849 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

G)4*
g
r.\6

Mr. Juda Irudiyanathan v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Juda Irudiyanathan v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board

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

Vanukuri Abhiram Reddy Vs The Director General

Mr. R. Rajanna Vs IndusInd Bank Limited

Jai Prakash Singh Vs The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries)

M/s Sjm Associates Vs Hari Krishna Reddy

Vade Lakshmadu Vs Sri K. Venkateswarlu

Avusali Raju, Vs The Union of India