Hirekar Bharathi Bai v. Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Outcome
Disposed of
expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a Writ, Order or any direction especially one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in laying down S.W.Drain for Flood Water through the land belonging to the petitioner situated in Block No.3, Ward No.6, Jaffar Ali Bagh, Hyderabad without paying any compensation or providing any alternative land as bad, illegal, arbitrary and capricious, without jurisdiction, violition of principles of natural justice, Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and also contrary to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2001(3) ALD 173, and consequently direct the respondents either to pay compensation or to provide an alternative land. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.GOPALAKRISHNAMACHARYULU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.G.RAMA RAO The Court at the admission stage made the following :
ORDER:
Operative part
The only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents having laid down S.W.Drain for flood water through the land belonging to the petitioner situated in Block No.3, Ward No.6, Jaffar Ali Bagh, Hyderabad, failed to pay any compensation, nor they provided any alternative land. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner states that she made a representation on 27.12.2004 requesting respondent-corporation to pay the compensation to which she is entitled to as per law. It is further stated that though the representation was received in the Office of the respondents-corporation on 30.12.2004, the same has not been considered so far. Since the representation is pending before the respondent-Corporation, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.12.2004 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ Note: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/o) Jsu To
26.04.2005 1 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, Division No.II, Special Circle, (Floods), Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.