M.A. Raheem v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
2, this Writ petition is disposed of, with a
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, this Writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondent No.2 not to demolish or remove the petitioner's illegal/ unauthorized structure without following due procedure…
Judgment
Cause title
Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to act in accordance with law, to follow the due process of law before initiating any demolition or removal of structure, constructed on Municipal No. 23-3-774, First Floor, Kaveli Kaman, Sultan shai, Hyderabad, comprising of Kaiser Tea Stall on the Ground floor and petitioner house on upper (2) floors. l.A.NO:1 OF 2014 {WPMP.NO:2822'l OF 2014 ) Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to pay 1,50,000/- compensation to the petitioner herein for the illegally demolishing the display board and other damages Iikely to be caused by the illegal and arbitrary acts of the respondent No. 2, in ll e interest of justice, equity and fairplay. l.A.NO:2 OF 2014 (WPMP.NO:28222OF 20141 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mzl ad-lnterim lnjunction in favour of the petitioner by restrairr herein and their subordinates from carrying out any kind of municipal No. 23-3-774, First Floor, Kaveli Kaman, SultzLr be pleased to grant rg the respondents illegal demolition of Shahi, Hyderabad comprising of Kaiser Tea Stall on the Ground floor and petitir ner house on upper (2) floors, pending disposal of main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MIRZA NISAR AHMED BAI(3 Counsel for the Respondents : SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESI- (SC FOR GHMC TELANGANA) The Court made the following ORDER e HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY UrRIT PETITION No.225O4 of 2Ol4
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking following relief "To direct the respondents herein to act in accord.ance uith lau..t, to follou.t the due process of tau.t before initiating ang demolition or remoual of stntcture constructed_ bg the petitioner uide Municipal No.23 3-774, First Floor, Kaueli Kamary Sultan Shahi, Hgderabad comprbing of Kaiser Tea Stall on the Ground Jloor and petitioner Lause has tulo upper floors, as being illegal and arbitrary. "
Heard Mr. Mirza Nisar Ahmed Barg Nizami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
Petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.23-3-774, Kaveli Kaman, Sultar Shahi, Hyderabad (for short "the subject property"). The said properfy comprises of ground floor and two upper floors and petitioner is living on first and second floor along with his family members and running a tea stall in the name and style of M/s Khaiser Tea Stall on the ground floor for the last 3 % decades. petitioner has obtained trade license from the GHMC authorities to run the tea stall:- As a matter stood thus, respondents without giving 2 ''*rliri \ -- \'i \ arry notice and without following due procedr re laid clown under law, came to subject property on 0 i.06.2014 at around 1.OO pm to 2.OO pm along with JCB (: rlldozer) and started demolishing the subject property. Agg :ieved bv the same, petitioner herein filed the present writ 1r :tition.
This Court uide order dated 06.08.2 )14 gralted interim order directing respondent No.2 no1 to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the l), titioner over the subject property except in accordalce wit:t lar.l'.
Learned Standing counsel for responde:t - No.2 would submit that petitioner has constructed the sut ject property by encroaching into public road. He further rubmits that respondents have issued notice to the pe -: :ioner dated O8.O9.2O14 under Section 405 of GHMC Act stating that petitioner has constructed building by encr r rching upon public road. He further submitted that irr v r w of interim order passed by this Court respondents cor Lld not take further steps ald further submitted that resl ondents will follow due process as contemplated under (i {MC Act for removal of illegaI construction made by the pet tioner. J
Operative part
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, this Writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondent No.2 not to demolish or remove the petitioner's illegal/ unauthorized structure without following due procedure laid down under law. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents in taking action against any structure raised by encroaching upon public road by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stald closed. SD/-S MALLIKARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// to ,l. ,n" Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal 2. The Asst. CitY Planner, Town Planning, Ward 23, Ci Bund, HYd erabad. MuniciPa lCorporation (GHMC). One CC to SRI MIRZA NISAR AHMED BAIG, Advocate [OPUCI J 4 One CC to SRI RAPARTHI VENKAT ESH (SC FOR GHMC TELANGANA) Ad
5. Two CD Copies vocate IOPUC] ECTION OFFICER orp ration, Lower Tank 4, Grater HYderabad SA Nr i, . :.: - i^i... 'tco^'\.' \\ i..t \ I JA.\ 2025 -iJ ,.:,:! -itt,z,/ .^.)y'' t.l.-i il i ' C O ,* HIGH COURT DATED:1710912025 ORDER WP.No.22504 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. i
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 2, this Writ petition is disposed of, with a
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
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.