The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ol the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or drrection more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare that the '1st respondent has no jurisdiction to determine whether the Plot No. l extent 269 sq.yards in sy.No.g87l 1 and 2, Bhavani Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad is pubric premises or not by folowing summary procedure prescribed under section 2(e), 2(g),4 and 5 0f the public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 in view of uninterrupted open and long standing possession of the petitioner and involving adjudication of a complex variety of facts and compricated questions of raw and consequenfly direct the 1st respondent to seek declaration of tifle before the appropriate civil court in respect of Plot No.1 extent 269 sq.yards in Sy.No.gg71 1 and 2, Bhavani Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad before passing the orders u/s 5 of the pubric Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act, 197.1 in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: '1 OF 2012(WPMP. N O: 39304 OF 20121 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the Form "A" notice issued by the 1 st respondent to the petitioner vide No. YW 1272M .V .lEncrl Sy.No.887/1 & 2ll{lJFl12, dated '1 1.9.2012 pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI L.ANAND, rep., SRI P.NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.ANJALI AGARWAL, SC FOR ED The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.30 807 0F 2012 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: "....7o isjlte an oppropriote Writ, oftl(,r ot. dirtc:tittn more particularly in the nature o./ fi/rit o/' Mundumus dc(laring the action of the l" respondent hus no jurisdk:tion to dcterminc \thelher lhe Plol No.l extent 269 Square yttnls in Strrter No.gg7/t qnd 2, Bha,,,ani Nogar, Malkoigiri. H.vtltrtthacl is puhli. prentises or not by following sLtmma,), procetlure prc.scribel Ltntler Section 2(e), 2(d,4 and 5 of the pubtic prenises (l^,icrion ol Unauthorized Occupants) Act, t97I in rierl rt/.unintyrntl1t...! of(:n and long standing possession o/' the pefitioner und in,olvint qdjudicdlion o1f a complex variltv ol. litc.ts rrntl .n,nplirntc) queslions of low and consequentl_y direcr the l't respontlcnr kt seek declaration of title belore lhe appropri.tte c.i|il court in respecf of Plot No.l cxtent 269 Square yartl,, tn Strt-t.t,). Nn XttT I anJ ). Bhavani Nagar, Malka_igiri, H),clerabofl, belbre pas.sina the ortler:- under section 5 of the public pretni.scs ([,icttun t,l L,annrtrlnri:t,l Oct'upctnts) Act, tA1 t tn thc intcrrit .)t.jtsticc.

2. Heard Mr. L.Anand, learned counsel, representing Mr. P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Anjali Agarwal, leamed Standing counser tbr Enforcement Directorate appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of plot No. I admeasuring 269 square yards in Survey No.gg7/l & 2, situated at Bhavani Nqgar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabacl, and rhe same was F 2 purchased by his father through a registered sale deed dated 10.02.1969, vide Docun.rent bearing No.505/1969. After his f'ather's dernise, the petitioner's mother and sister executed a release deed in his favour under the registered docurnent bearing No.7449/2007, dated 29.10.2007. Thereafrer, the said house becarne old and dilapidated; the petitioner subrnitted a, application to the GHMC for reco,structio, of the building by demolishing the old structure. Accordi,gry, the GHMC approved the sar.rctioned plan for reconstruction of the building vide perrnission No.G2/652/2008, dated 08.04.2009. In view of the approved sanctioned plan received from the GHMC, the petitio,er rnade constructior-r in the subject property. Respondent No. 1 ca,re to the subject property and insisted the petitioner to obtain Noc fiorn the Railways. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a letter to the respondent for issuance of NOC, but tl-re responder-rt refused to give Noc as the la.rd belongs to thc Railways. Responde,t issued Forrn A notice dated r r-09-2012 exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of Sub-Section (l) and Clause (b) (ii) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the public premises of the Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, I 97 I , (for short .Tl.re Act, I 97 I ,). 3 Pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 24.09.2012. Respondent, without considering the said explanation submitted by him, is trying to interfere with the subject property and the same is a gross violation of principles of natural justice. Leamed counsel furtl.rer submitted that respondent No.l does not have authority or jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Act, t 97 l, untit and unless the respondent approaches the competent civil court to establisl.r that the subject property belongs to respondent No' I and then only respondent No.l is entitled to initiate proceedings Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the subject property belongs to the Railways and the petitioner occupied the same. Respondent No. I, exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of the Act, 1971, rightly issued a show cause notice. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that respondent No.1 will consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and he wilI pass the orders in accordance with law if not alreacly considered and requested this Court to grant reasonable time. 4

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is claiming rights over the subj ect pioperty through registered sale dated 29.10.2007 vide Document bearing No.744912001 . Respor-rdent No.1 had issued a show cause notice dated

11.09.2012. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted an explanatiorr dated 24.09.2012. This Court, while admitting the writ petitior.r on 03.10.20 12, directed tire respondents to consider the explanation dated 24.09.2012 submitted by the petitioner and to proceed rvith the lnatter and pass appropriate orders and further observed that if any adverse order is passed against tl.re petitioner, the same sha[[ not be enforced till further orders are passed by this Court. The said interim order is continuing till date. The petitioner or respondents have not placed any information before this Courl whether respondent No.1 considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the above said interirn order passed by this Court.

6. Taking into cor.rsideration the facts and circumstances of the case, tl-ris Court deerns it fit and proper to dispose of the writ 5 petition directing respondent No.l to consider the explanation dated 24.09.2012 submitted by the petitioner pursuant ro tlle show cause notice dated I 1.09.2012 and pass appropriate orders in aicordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner including personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already considered, and till such tirne, respotrdent No. I is directed not to take any coercive steps in respect ofthe subject property. 7 With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shaU stand closed. SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY EPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Divisional Railway [Vlanager and E Division,South Central Railway, Hydera bad Bhavan, te Officer, Hyderabad Secunderabad.

2. The Principal Secretary, Railways Department, Union of lndia, New Delhi 3. One CC to SRI P.NAGENDRA REDDY, Advocate. tOpUCl 4. One CC to Ms.ANJALI AGARWAL, SC FOR ENFORCET/ENT DTRECTORATE [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies. BSK Yy GJP HIGH COURT DATED:27t02t2025 I /a / , U ',,1/ \ ..i ( 26 JUt'l zffi -.+ * Disear ctr EU ORDER WP.No.30807 o12012 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS :rs:6feA w^^ /nnVV'