Sahera Sultana v. The State Of Telangana And 2 Others

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.14296 OF 2019 Date:19.08.2019 Between:

Sahera Sultana, W/o. Syed Mansoor Hussain, aged 46 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.17-2-990, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad .. Petitioners And The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others Respondents The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.14296 OF 2019 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for respondent No.1, Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for GHMC for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2.

Petitioner claimed that the land to an extent of 250 sq. yards in H.No.16-7-799/2 and 250 sq. yards in H.No.16-7-799/2/A of Moosanagar, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, belongs to her as a consequence of gift settlement deed executed by her husband on 15.05.2019. Petitioner now alleges that illegally the Municipal Corporation is dispossessing her from the subject property, removing the temporary structures and undertaking construction of compound wall without issuing notice and without following proper procedure.

3.

The recitals are silent as to how the husband of the petitioner acquired the said property and in what manner he gave the said property to her. No other material is placed on record to show the semblance of ownership. The photographs filed along with the Writ Petition do not disclose the alleged scrap business being carried out, but only disclose the piling up of stones, which are used by the Municipal Corporation for construction of compound wall.

4.

According to learned standing counsel for GHMC, it is the Moosi river bed area and people are trying to encroach thereof. To prevent encroachments, the construction of compound wall is

undertaken by the Municipal Corporation. It is asserted that no structures are existing as alleged by the petitioner. 5.

Since there is no material to show that the petitioner is the owner of the subject land; she is in occupation and enjoyment of the same and she is illegally dispossessed, the claim in the Writ Petition cannot be accepted. The Writ Petition merits no consideration.

6.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date:19.08.2019 KH