Mohd.Khaza & Anr. v. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao had taken notice and requested time to file

1.4.2003 with the following direction:

After getting instructions from concerned officials, that Municipal learned standing counsel submitted Corporation of Hyderabad has not taken any coercive steps for demolition of structure and that on 27.3.2003 or on 31.3.2003 and no official or squad of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad went to the spot to demolish the building. The same is recorded. Needless to point out that unless Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad initiates action to acquire the land by agreement under Section 14 or by taking recourse to land acquisition proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their property forcibly nor their structure can be demolished. The Writ Petition with the above observations is dismissed at the admission stage

. It is also further stated subsequently there was a claim of the property of the petitioners as Government land as per the letter of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Charminar Mandal, dated 27.8.2004 which is addressed to the 2nd respondent, wherein it is mentioned that their premises are recorded as Government land in the Town Survey Land Register. At that stage, the petitioners had filed O.S.No.22 of 2005 on the file of the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and in IA No.4 of 2005, the following order was passed on 20.12.2005:

In the result, the petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents are restrained by way of granting temporary injunction by demolishing or dispossessing the petitioners from the suit schedule property without due process of law

. It is also stated that from all the proceedings referred above, it is crystal clear that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the said malgies and since there is proposal for acquisition of the malgies for the purpose of road widening, the respondents are required to follow the procedure of law contained in Sections 146 and 147 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. It is also further stated that the petitioners received a notice under Section 456 of the Act dated

16.10.2006 issued by the 1st respondent suggesting demolition of their malgies on the ground that they are dilapidated condition and required to be pull down. It is thus clear that the 1st respondent is trying to circumvent the order of this Court and avoid payment of compensation to the petitioners, notices under Section 456 of the Act were issued on the false ground that their malgies are dilapidated and in dangerous condition and thus posing threat to the public at large. To the said notice, petitioners had submitted explanation dated 10.8.2006 denying the allegation that their malgies are in dilapidated and damaged condition and also stated that their malgies are strong enough to withstand for another 50 years to come. However, the 1st respondent had passed final order dated 17.8.2006 that the petitioners should remove the malgies within 3 days under Section 459 of the Act, failing which their malgies would be demolished by the Corporation.

As against the final order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, in MA No.123 of 2006 and by the order dated 23.10.2006 the appellate authority under Section 607 of the Act had granted interim stay of demolition. When the petitioners went to the office of the 2nd respondent with the said order in IA No.941 of 2006 in MA No.123 of 2006 on 24.10.2006, the office of the 2nd respondent did not receive the order copy and the petitioners were orally told that their malgies would be high-handedly demolished on Friday i.e., on 27.10.2006. On hearing this, the petitioners became panicky and they were also directed to remove the articles from the malgies to avoid damage to the same. Thus, the petitioners have reasonable and genuine apprehension respondent- Corporation will resort to high-handed action of demolition of their malgies on 27.10.2006. It is further stated that the Corporation had not initiated any steps for acquisition of the malgies under Section 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and in the face of the stay order granted by the appellate authority, the Corporation is high- handedly asserting that their malgies would be demolished on Friday.

Under these circumstances, the petitioners are constrained to seek indulgence of this Court as the business from the said malgies is only source of their livelihood. Though the petitioners are pursuing legal remedies, the Corporation is threatening them with high-handed action of demolition, which is totally arbitrary. The petitioners’ suit and appeal before the appellate authority are still pending. No notice has been issued by the Corporation suggesting demolition on 27.10.2006. Insofar as the notices issued under Sections 456 and 459 of the Act are concerned, the petitioners have already filed appeal in MA No.123 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, which is pending with an order of stay. Thus, the respondents are not justified in threatening and taking steps for demolition of the malgies of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the petitioners had approached this Court praying for the relief referred to supra.