Shabaz & Ors. v. The Commissioner, Nalgonda Municipality, Nalgonda & Ors.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15972 of 2004 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners seek for a declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent-Municipality in demolishing their house bearing No.5-7-436/2 (Old), 5-7-436/1 (New) as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation equivalent to the value of the house, which was demolished.

It is the case of the petitioners that their mother was allotted house site admeasuring about 200 square yards the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer Bottuguda locality of Nalgonda town, and the petitioners have constructed the house bearing No.5-7-436/2 (Old), 5-7-436/1 (New) over the said land. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though such construction of house was made in the land allotted to their mother, the 1st respondent-Municipality took away the title deeds on the pretext of verification and demolished their house in December 2003, without issuing any prior notice or giving opportunity to them. It is their grievance that such demolition is illegal and arbitrary, and as such, they are entitled for award of compensation on account of loss caused to them due to illegal demolition.

The Commissioner of the 1st respondent- Municipality has filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the petitioners were not residents of the house bearing Nos.5-7-436/2 (Old), 5-7-436/1 (New) at Bottuguda locality in Nalgonda town, and that the said house numbers did not exist at all as per the Municipal records. With regard to the allegation of demolition, it is categorically stated that the Municipality has never demolished the house bearing No.5-7-436/2 (Old), 5-7-436/1 (New) at Bottuguda locality. It is also stated that the Government has never allotted the land in question to the mother of the petitioners.

The averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of 1st respondent-Municipality, raise serious factual disputes. Though it is the case of the petitioners that a house plot of 200 square yards was allotted to the mother of the petitioners by the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, but the same is categorically denied in the counter affidavit. Even with regard to the existence of house, it is stated that no such house exist as per Municipal records, and therefore, the question of demolishing the same by the 1st respondent-Municipality does not arise. In view of the said serious factual disputes, in the absence of recording any evidence, it is not possible for this Court to record any finding on the questions whether any house site was allotted to the mother of the petitioners and whether any such house, as stated by the petitioners, was constructed and existed, and whether any such house was demolished. In that view of the matter, it is not possible for this Court to grant any relief in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioners to pursue any other remedy available under law. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd November 2009 N.B: Furnish C.C. in one week. (b/o)