Dismissed

Hanuman Dass Sharam , Hanuman Prasad Sharam v. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Telangana HC8 Jan 2025WP/10488/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a land acquisition award, pending since 2008, was closed after the petitioners' counsel passed away and petitioners, despite service of notice by registered post, failed to appear or engage another counsel on multiple listing dates; the Court concluded they were not interested in pursuing the petition and closed it without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hanuman Dass Sharam , Hanuman Prasad Sharam Vs The… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶¹

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:^'t0488 OF 2008

¶7

Between:

¶8

Hanuman Dass Sharam @ Hanuman Prasad Sharam, S/o Late Mulchand Sharma Private Service,

¶9

Smt. Vimala bai W/o Late Ramesh Chand Sharm, House wife/

¶10

Ritesh Sharma @ Pavan Sharma S/o Late Ramesh Chand Sharma, Private Service

¶11

Ravinder Sharma S/o late Ramesh Chand Sharma, Service.

¶12

It/lohanlal Sharma Sio late Mulchand Sharma, Service.

¶13

Rajender Sharam S/o lte Mulchand Sharma, Service.

¶14

All'are Fl/o H.No. 6-2-685 to 688 Chintal basti, Khairtabad, Hyderabad

¶15

.,.PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal, Corporation Office at GHMC Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶18

The Special Deputy Collector, land Acquisition, G.H.M.C. Hyderabad, Office at GHMC Complex, Tank Bund Road, hyderabad.

¶19

Banwarilal Sharma S/o late Mulchand Sharma, Business,^Rl/o H. No. 6-2-685 to 688 Chintal Basti, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

¶20

Bansilal S/o late Mulchand Sharma, Business Rl/o H. No. 6-2-685 1o 688 chintal basti, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

¶21

...RES'ONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^maybe pleased to issue order or direction, more particularly order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and call for record retating to and connected with letter/notice^and quash the same by issuing appropriate writ order or direction declaring that the said notice received by the respondent No.3 and 4 and award by respondent^No.2 as discriminatory, ar:bitrary, unreasonable, unjust and vioaltive of fundamental rights guaranteed under article 14, 19⁽¹ Xg) and 21 and the^right to^property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of lndia.

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008 WPMP. NO: 13716 OF 2008 )

¶24

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 stay all fu(her proceedings pursuant to order/award passed by the respondent No.2 in proceedings No. B/828/2004 dated 28-03-2008 including d ispossession/demolition of property bearing No. 6-2-685 to 688 situated at Chintal Basti, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main WP.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A.KRISHNA RAO ( NOT PRESENT) Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI K.RAVINDER REDDY, SC FOR GHMC

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI T.V.RAJEEVAN

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.10488 of 2008

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records relating to award proceeding bearing No.B/828/2004 dated 28-03-2008 in respect of^premises bearing^{Municipal No.6-2-685-688} situated at Chintal Basti,^{Khairatabad, Hyderabad}

¶32

The Writ^{Petition filed in} the^{year 2008 is pending on the} file of this Court and was listed for flnal hearing on 06-06-2022^{and was adjourned thereafler} to^13-06-2022, on which date it was brought to^{the notice} of^{the Court that the} leamed counsel fbr the petitioners had^passedaway. Accordingly, the Court^had directed to^{issue notices} to^the petitioners and directed the matter be listed oo 28-06-2022

¶33

Thereafter, the matter was^{onceagainlisted} on^24-06-2024. On the said date, this Cour1, on^{noticingthe docket} order^dated 13-06-2022 and having regard to the passage of time, directed the Registry to issue fresh notice to petitioners by Registered post with Acknowledgment Due

¶34

rlt*r:

¶35

¶36

Pulsuant to the aforesaid^{directionof this CoLrrl. notices}

¶37

were taken ou1 to the petitioners^{at the address mentionedrn the} Writ Petition

¶38

5 Registrl has submitted a repoft^{dated 12-07-2024 enclosing} therewith the postal acknowledgment^{received showing the} service ofthe notices taken out to^{the petitioners}

¶39

6 Despite petitioners being served^{with noticeissuedby the} Court informing of the^{pendencyof the Writ Petition, thele has} been no reprcsentation on^behalf of^{the petitionerseithertn} person o[ through another counsel in the^place of^{ealliel counsel,} who had deceased

¶40

Since tl-re petitioners did not^choose to^{appear on being} served rvitl.r notice. this Courl taking note of the^{fact that the} earlier counset had filed Writ Petition along^withauother Advocate. direcLed the Registry to reflect the^{name of the second} counsel, rvho has signed vakalat on behalf of^{petitioners,n the}

Writ Petition.

I I 1

1i ii ll

-=--*7

Despite the petitioners being served with notice and also the

¶48

name of second counsel is reflected in the cause list, there has

¶49

been no representation on behalf of the petitioners on

¶50

23-10-2024,30-10-2024, 18-12-2024 and even todav when rhe matter is listed.

¶51

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the

¶52

petltloners are not interested to pursue the Writ petition.

¶53

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs.

¶54

I l. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall

¶55

stand closed.

¶56

SD/.A. SRINIVASA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

S CTION OFFICER

To 1. OneOne

OneOne CC to SRI A.KRISHNA^{RAO, Advocate} [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI K.RAVINDER^{REDDY, SC FORGHMC} IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRI T.V.RAJEEVAN,^Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

PSK.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810112025

ORDER

WP.No.10488 of 2008

1
e ST4,"6
(o
+ .}6
C
(-_
05 F E 2[25 o
^
+
t DE5;:,. 11-- vt':

¶70

CLOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

$
{

Hanuman Dass Sharam , Hanuman Prasad Sharam v. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hanuman Dass Sharam , Hanuman Prasad Sharam v. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kammari Kamala Vs The State of Telangana

Parlapelli Leya Vs State of Telangana

Kota Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Puchala Jangaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Janagama Rajeshwari Vs The State of Telangana

Dattatri Vs The State of Telangana