The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri C. Buchi Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER \ l I t t I I ,.2\{.s IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE H()N'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA DATE: O5.L2.2O25 crVIL PETITIoN NO.L744 0F 201 9 Betqree:n: NampalyVyayamsala Petitioner And The Assistant Estate Officer (Lands) Telangana Housing Board, Gruhakalpa Opp: Ex.hibition Grounds, NamPallY And an<tther. ..Respondents ORDER Ttris Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitrrtion of Indiar-is filed-aggrieved by the Judgment and decree, dated 14.O8.2O18, in C.M.A. No.14.08.2018, passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the appeal filed against order in Case No.3/ CPi-/2007, dated 13.03.2017, was dismissed. 2, Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsei appearing for the petitioner and Sri C.Buchi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.I and 2. . l: :l: i ;1,: i: i!i:. l;:'..':.1:i:ji+ 2 NNR,J ctq L744_20L9

3. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner was allotted land admeasuring 325.56 square yards and 894.34 square yards respectively, for running Vyayamshala and educational institutions to impart education to both physical and inteliectually poor and backrvard classespeople residing in and around old Nampally area vide G.O.Ms.No.17B3. L.A., dated 09.10. L957 and G.O.Ms.No.751, L.A., dated 19.03. 1959 on lease @ Rs. l I - per annum for a period of 20 years. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad also allotted piece of adjoining land admeasuring

887.33 square yards to petitioner-society for the purpose of playground on lease for a period of 20 years. ' 4. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents have proposed for sale of entire land in possession of petitioner and communicated the same to it uide letter, dated

25.09.1980.Thereafter, through letter, dated 19.07 -1982, the respondents informed that sale cannot be made to a society and orally informed the petitioner to convert the same into Trust. Accordingly, the petitioner converted into "Nampa1ly Vyayamsala Trust" duly registered on 27.11.1982 by transferring all the irnmovable properties and informed to the *( ,\ : i -.,) 3 NNR,J c(p_1744_20t9 respondent about its readiness for execution of sale Deed uide, letter, dated 16.10.1982.Whi1e the matter is pending for consideration,the respondents have fiied cases against the petitioner with false allegations and enhanced the rent abnorma-lly in spite of knowing well about renewing of lease and rurrning of school by it.

5. Aggrieved by the dual stand taken by the responclent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.B161 of 1989, and this court c.isposed of the said writ petition by fixing the monthly rent payabie by the petitioner at Rs.2,SOO/-. The respondents with fa se arlegations filed cases against the petitioner with a view to evict it from the subject premises. 6, Respondent No.1 filed counter-affidavit stating that leerse period of subject land had expired long back i.e., in the yeils L977 and L979 respectively and thereafter no extension was granted. It is stated that after expiry of tl.e period, the petitioner has not vacated the subject premises and ccntinuing in the said premises as unautho rized, occupant. The said lands are not being utilized for the purpose of which they were given on lease and are being / / 4 NNR,J ,:" ') ctp_1744_20L9 utilized for other purpose in contravention of the terms of lease. The petitioner did not accept the earlier offers of the Housing Board to sell the land, which in its occupation and did not accept to enhance rent. The petitioner simply wants to enjoy use and occupation of the valuable Board's land at free of cost.

7. The respondent-Board filed Case No./CAll2OO7 under Sections 52 and 53 of the A.P.Housing Board Act, 1956 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the subject premises and to award attachment of the property of the respondents for recovery of damages as determined by the Court etc. After hearing both parties, the Competent Authority allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner herein to vacate and handover peaceful vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the petitioner immediately, failing which the respondents shall be evicted forcibly as per Section 52 of the A.P.Housing Board Act. It was also further directed to pay damages @ Rs.52,l4O/- with effect from 01:OL.L977 till the date of vacation/eviction. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed C.M.A.N o.29 of 2Ol7 on the file of learned. chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad. The learned chief n \ \ 5 NNR,J ct9_1744_2079 Judge after hearing both parties, dismissed the appeai with costs c,onfirming the order of the competent Authority. Aggriev,:d by the same, the present civil Revision petition is filed by the petitioner herein.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that twice ttre competent Authority dismissed the application filed by the A.P.Housing Board seeking eviction of the petitioner and tht: sarne has become final and hence, the sarne act as res judicata; that petitioner is running high school in the subject premises meant for children of weaker sections and seeking eviction of such organization is unfair; that the APHB has failed to establish its title over the subject property and no documents a-re filed in support of its case. He also submitrs that learned 1"t appellate court passed the impugned order jn a mechanical manner without appreciating the content.ions raised by the petitioner in proper perspective. In suppor'; of his contentions he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble supreme court in state of orissa and others v. 6 NNR,J ctp_L744 20L9 Chandra Nandiland hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioner is in occupation of the I subject premises since L957 and the lease period had qxpired in the year 1977 and after expiry of lease period no further extension of lease was granted either by the Board or by the Government, the petitioner is deemed to be an unauthorrzed occupernt of the subject premises; that the petitioner has contravened Clauses 4 and 6 of the Lease Agreement by making unauthorized construction and also the purpose for which the land was leased to it was not utilized. Therefore, thd respondents issued letter, dated 03. i 1 .2006 to the petitioner to vacate the subject premises and handover the sarne to the respondent-Board. He further submits that the Competent Authority after considering the entire material on record rightly passed order and the same was confirmed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court and. there are no grounds to interfere with the same. ,ed ' (zorg) 4 Supreme court cases 357 7 NNR,J crp_1744_2019

10. The case of petitioner is that since the cases filed by the ::espondent-Board were dismissed, the petitioner filed w.P.No.Bi61 0f 1989 before this court and this court disposeC of the salne on the ground that no notice was issued before issuing the said letter and directing to treat the said letter irs notice granting time to the petitioner to file objections, if any. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation requesting the respondents to continue the lease or to sell the subject land to it. It is further stated that this in w.P.No.26653 of 2OO1 has directed that any plots belonging to the Housing Board in excess of 1O0 squ.are yards shall be disposed by way of public auction. In view of the judgment of this Court, the Government withdrew proposal sent eerlier as to sale of the said land. He further submits that ttre respondent-Board given the subject lands to the petitiorrer on lease for the purpose of construction of Vyayanrshala and swimming pool, but the petitioner constnrcted school building in the premises and collecting fees from the students and contravened the lease conditions and d.irections of this Court in W.P.No.26653 of 2001.1n support of his contentions, he also placed reliance on the t t 8 NNR,J crp_L744_20t9 r) judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Jagdish Sharan Agarnral and otherszand also placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Aliahabad (Lucknow Bench) in State of U.P. v. Chandrawali and others3.

11. Heard both the counsel and perused the order passed by the learned Chief Judge. No doubt, on perusal of the order passed by respondent No.1 i.e., Competent Authority, as many as six issues were framed and the same were answered by it. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Chief Judge. As seen from the impugned order, the learned Chief Judge without answering th€ said issues and without giving any individual conclusion on the issues raised by the Competent Authority and without appreciating the grounds which are raised by the petitioner, the learned Chief Judge passed the impugned order. Further, the learned l't appellate Court passed the impugned order only after considering the relevant provisions of A.P. Housing Board Act. '1zOoS1 1 Supreme Court Cases 689 'zozq(zlAuu 149 A ;\: 9 NNR,J ctq_1744_20L9 L'.2. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that on two occasions, the petitions filed by the respondent-Board were dismiss;ed by the competent Authority on the ground. that the Board has not produced any documents to prove its right, title and possession over the subject propert5t.

13. As rightly argued by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the learned l"t appellate court ought to have independently deatt with all the issues which lrose in between the parties including the aspect of res judicate so also the aspect of jurisdiction of the competent Authority, which has not beeh dealt with; and whether petitioner is having lease hold rights over the subject property; whether the competent authority is having authority to initjate proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 52 an<l 53 of the A.P.Housing Board Act or not have to be answer:ed independently while considering the appeal. since no pr,f,per reasons and independent appreciation of the material is placed before the appellate authority, this court is of the considered opinion that the order passed. by the authority is an unreasoned order as it should not support by t? . .,::t...:.',_..- .., : 10 NNR,J c/p_1744_2019 6\ any reasons. In the absence of the same, the said order remanded back to the appellate Court. L4. In Chandra Nandi's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "10. This Court has consistentlg laid down that euery judicial or/and quki-iuaaal ord.er passed. bg the court/tribunal/aufiwritg concerned, which decides the tis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its concluston. The parties to the lis and. so also the appellant/revisionary court while examining the conectness of the order are entitled to know as fo on uthich basis, a particular conclusion is aniued at in the order. In the absence of ang disanssion, the reasons and findings on the submission s urged, if ls not pos sible to know os to uthat led the Court/tibunal/autlaritg for reaching to such conclusion.

11. The order impugned inthis appeat suffersfrom aforesaiderror, because the Higlt Court uthile passing the impugned order had onlg issued the writ of mandamus b g giving direction to the State to gtue some reliefs to the utrit petitioner (respondent) without recording anA reason

12. ststainable and lence deserues to be set aside. We are, therefore, of the vieut that such order is nof legallg

13. In uiew of the foregoing disanssion, the appeal succeeds and is accordinglg ollowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanled to the High Court for deciding the urit petition afreslq out of which this appeal an'ses, for its disposal in accordance with law keeping in uiew the obseruations made aboue."

15. Taking into consideration the aforesaid decision, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to remand the 11 NNR,J ctp_!744_20L9 matter back to the learned trial Court for disposal afresh on merits. Lt5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 14.OB.2O1B in C.M.A.No.29 of 2Ol7 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the matter is remanded back to the said Court lbr deciding the matter afresh after considering a-11 the aspectsi and the issues raised before the Competent Authority and dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, without giving unnecessary adjournments, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties are directed to cooperate for disposal of the casle. There shall be no order as to costs I\{iscellaneous petitions, if ary, pending shall stand i closed. \ To, SD/. SREENIVASA REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri Vedula Srinivas, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri C. Buchi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VH/PS yn, I n ?t'r o rJ 7 * S i.: i ll I I'IAR 7fl2fi )f HIGH COURT NNR, J DATED: l)5/1 212025 ORDER CRP.N o.'1744 of 2019 ALLOWING THE CRP )A