Mohd. Amiruddin, Hyd v. B. Srinivas Reddy, Hyd And 4 Others

[ 32e6 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1942 OF 2014 WRIT PETITION NO: 33142 OF 2013 AND WRIT PETITION NO: 29387 OF 2014 Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the respondent herein for willfully and deliberately, violating, the orders of the High Court dated 20-t 1-2O13 in W.P.M.P.No. 41231 ot 2013 in W.P.No. 33142 of Between:

Mohd. Amiruddin S/o Late Mohd. Himayatuddin Aged about 52 years, Occ: Bank Employee Rl/o Plot No. 78, H.No. 11-15-63 Road No. 2, Doctor Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad.

...PETITIONEFYPETIIONER AND B. Srinivas Reddy, Deputy Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Circle No.3, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. Mr. C.N. Raghu Prasad, Zonal Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Saroornagar Nagar, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. S.Yadaiah S/o S. Jangaiah Goud Aged about 45 years, Occ: Builder C/o Mallikarjuna Steel Shop, Rl/o Plot No. 79 Doctor Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad.

4. B.Venugopal S/o B.Laxmaiah Aged about 45 years, Occ: Steel Shop Owner, Mallikarjuna Steel Shop, Rl/o Plot No. 79 Doctor Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad.

5. D.Venkata Chary S/o D. Chandraiah Aged about 40 years, Occ: Gold Smith Ryo Plot No. 79, Doctor Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. J ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 6

lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 issue a direction to the respondentsicorporation Officials to stop the construction by the unofficial respondent forthwith by calling the respondents by summoning them to this Hon'ble Court and punish them for their willful disobedience and intentional violation of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. MOHD ASIFUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No. 'l & 2: M. DURGA PRASAD (SC FOR GHMC) Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI SRINIVASULU KURRA Counsel forthe Respondent No.3 & 5: None Appeared WRIT PETITION NO: 33142 OF 2013 Between:

Mohd. Amiruddin, S/o Late Mohd. Himayatuddin Aged about 52 years, Occ: Bank Employee Rr/o PIot No. 78, H.No. 11-15-63 Road No.2, Doctor Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad.

...PETITIONER AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.3, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Zonal Commissioner, Saroomagar Nagar, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. S. Yadaiah S/o S. Jangaiah Goud Aged about 45 years, Occ: Builder C/o Mallikarjuna Steel Shop, Fl/o Plot No. 79 Doctor Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad.

B- Venugopal S/o B. Laxmaiah Aged about 45 years, Occ. Steel Shop Owner, Mallikarjuna Steel Shop, Ri/o Plot No. 79 Doctor Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad.

D. Venkata Chary S/o D. Chandraiah Aged about 40 years, Occ: Gold Smith Rl/o Plot No. 79, Doctor Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS 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 a appropriate writ order or orders, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No. 1 to 3 in not taking action against the respondents No. 4 to 6 for their illegal construction by

encroaching the road adjacent to petitioner residence pursuant to various representations latest being dated 05-09-2013 is arbitrary and illegal and consequently issue a direction to the respondents No. 1 to 3 to remove illegal construction and encroachment on road adjacent to petitioner house WPMP. NO: 41231 OF 2013 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 issue a direction to the respondents No. '1 to 3 to take action against respondents No. 4 to 6 to not to proceed with any further construction without there being any sanctioned plan and in gross violation of Building Bye Law pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHD ASIFUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No 1 to 3: K DURGA PRASAD (SC FOR GHMC) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: J. JAYANAND Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 to 6: R. DHEERAJ SINGH The Court made the following: ORDER WRIT PETITION NO: 29387 OF 2014 Between:

1 . S. Yadaiah, S/o. Jangaiah, aged 40 years, Occ: Labour, Rl/o. Plot No.79, '1 115-83lBl1 , Doctors Colony, Saroornagar, R.R. District

2. B. Venugopal, S/o. Lakshmaiah, aged 47 years, Occ: Labour, Rl/ o. Plot No.79, 1 1-15-B3lBl1, Doctors Colony, Saroornagar, R.R.District ..PETITIONERS AND 1 . Govemment of Telangana rep by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Depadment, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep by its Deputy Commissioner, Circle-3, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ/Order/Direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned notice in UC|32M.l4lTPSlC3lEZl GHMC/2011 dt.09.01.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, impermissible and in violation of principles of natural justice besides violation of Art.14 of the Ccnstitution of lndia and consequently set aside the impugned

proceedings in UCl32lV"l .l4fiPSlC3lEZlGHMC/2011 dt.09.0'1 .14 issued by the 2nd respondent l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 36738 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 suspend the operation of impugned proceedings in UC|32M.14ffPslC3l EZlGHMCl2ll '1 dt.09.01.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. SRINIVASULU KURRA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV (TG) Counsel forthe Respondents: K DURGA PRASAD (SC FOR GHMC) The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY Contempt Case No. 1942 of 2OL4;

Writ Petition No.33142 of 2O13 and Writ Petition No.29387 of 2O14 COMMON ORDER:

Since common issue arise in all these cases, they are being disposed of by '{,ay of this Common Order with the consent of both parties.

Writ Petition No.29387 of 2Ol4 :

2. Writ Petition No.29387 of 2Ol4 is filed by the petitioners (respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the present Contempt Case) seeking a Wrtt of Mandamus to declare the impugned notice in UCl32/W.14|TPSlC3/EZ/GH}IIC/ 2O11, dated O9.O1.2O14, issued by the 2"d respondent therein as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, impermissible and in violation of principles of natural justice besides violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and consequently to set aside the impugned notice, dated O9.O 1.2014, issued by the 2"d respondent.

..)..

CVBR,J cc_1942_2or4&batch 3.

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.29387 of 2014.

4.

Vide above impugned notice, the 2"a respondent directed the petitioners therein (respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the present Contempt Case) to remove / dismantle the unauthorized constructions within three (03) days, failing which action would be initiated by it.

A perusal of the said impugned notice would go to sl-iow that, the petitioners therein (respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the present Contempt Case) have earlier approached the Civil Court, by filing O.S.l.to.52 of 2Ol2 before the ii Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District; vide order dated 16.02.2012, the Court below disposed of O.S.No.52 of 2Ol2 on its lile; and subsequently, in Writ Petition No.33142 of 2013, filed by one Mohd. Amiruddin (petitioner in the present Contempt Case), a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 20. 1 1 .20 13 in WPMP.No.4123I of 2013 in Writ Petition No.33 142 of 2013, granted interim direction by directing the respondent Nos.4 to 6 therein not to proceed with further constructions in the subject property therein.

CVBR,J cc_1942_2o14&batch -t 6.

A further perusal of the said impugned notice would also disclose that the petitioners (respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the present Contempt Case) are executing constructions unauthorisedly; and therefore, the impugned notice came to be issued by the 2"d respondent directing the petitioners to remove / dismantle the unauthorized constructions within three (03) days.

7.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners (respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the present Contempt Case) filed the present Writ Petition.

8. Vide order dated 13.10.2014 passed 1n WPMP.No.3673B of 2Ol4 in Writ Petition No.29387 of 2014, a learned Single Judge of this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned notice 09.O1.2014, issued by the 2"a respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition. 9.

On a query by the Court, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, for respondent Nos. I and 2, submitted that pursuant to the interim suspension granted by the learned Single Judge, they have not taken action on the illegal constructions carried out by the petitioners (respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the present Contempt Case).

I CVBR,] cc_1942_2o14&batch Wiit Petition No.33142 of 2O1.3 :

10. Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No.29387 of 2014, one Mohd. Amiruddin, claiming to be adjacent owner of the subject property, filed Writ Petition No.33 142 of 2O13 before this Court, seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for removal of illegal constructions carried out by the respondent Nos.4 to 6

11. A lezLrned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 2O.)1.2013 in WPMP.No.41231 of 2O13 in Writ Petition No.33 142 of 2O 13, granted interim direction by directing the respondent Nos.4 to 6 therein not to proceed with further constructions in the subject property without sanction plan.

Qgglempt Case No.1942 o

12. Alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed by tlre learned Single Judge in WPMP.No.4123l of 2O13 in Writ Petition No.33 142 of 20 13, dated 20.11.20 13, the present Contempt Case came to be filed by the petitioner against the respondents.

CVBR,J cc 1942 2o14&batch

13. Heard Mohd. Asifuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.33142 of 2013 and Contempt Case; the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, for respondent-Corporation, in all the cases. None appears for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.29387 of2014.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein (petitioners in Writ Petition No.29387 of 2014, except respondent No.6), without having any valid permission / sanction plan from the respondentMunicipal Corporation have proceeded to raise permanent structures which necessitated the petitioner to file r,r,rit petition, viz., Writ Petition No.33 142 of 2013, praying for a direction to the respondent-Corporation to remove the illegal constructions carried out by respondent Nos.4 to 6 therein.

15. It is the further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that even after l-rling of the present Contempt Case, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not taken action on the iliegal constructions carried out by respondent Nos.4 to 6 though notice dated 09.Ol.2Ol4 was issued to

CVBR,.] cc 1942 2ol4&batch the unofficial respondents by the respondent-Corporation under Section 636 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (impugned in Writ Petition No.29387 of 2014).

16. In vier.v of above submissions, the Writ Petition No.33 142 of 2013 is ailowed. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 therein are directed to forthwith remove all illegal constructions made by respondent Nos.4 to 6 in pursuance of the notice, dated 09.O7.2014, issued under Section 636 of Greater Hl.derabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 in accordance rx,ith law.

L7 . In vieu, of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.33 142 of 2013, no further orders are necessalv to be passed in the Contempt Case. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed.

18. Since there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.29387 of 2014, the same is dismissed for non-prosecution.

CVBR,] cc_r942_2o14&batch

19. In the result, (a) the ContemPt Case is closed;

(b) Writ Petition No.33142 of 2O 13 is allowed; and (c) Writ Petition No.29387 of 2OL4 is dismissed for non-prosecution.

20. No costs.

2L. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in these batch of cases, shall stand closed' Sd/. T SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// Cfu sEcTl0i.r To, O FFICE R 1 . The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad

2. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.3, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

3. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Zonal Commissioner, Saroomagar Nagar, L.8.Nagar, Hyderabad.

4. One CC to SRl. MOHD ASIFUDDIN, Advocate [OPUCI

5. One CC to SRl. M. DURGA PRASAD (SC FOR GHMC) [OPUC]

6. One CC to SRl. J. JAYANAND, Advocate [OPUC]

7. One CC to SRl. C. DAMODAR REDDY (SC FOR GHMC) [OPUCI B. One CC to SRl. R. DHEERAJ SINGH, Advoc€te [OPUC]

9. One CC to SRl. SRINIVASULU KURRA Advocate [OPUC] 10..Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV (TG) ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 11.One CC to M/s. A. DEEPTHI Advocate [OPUCI 1 2. Two CD Copies \ V VH Pt(

HIGH COURT DATED: 0910212023 COMMON ORDER 1 g SrATI o CC.No.1942 of 2014 W. P.NO: 33142 OF 2013 AND W. P.NO: 29387 OF 2014 l q :)o 16 il[\ 2s8 I CLOSING THE CC li il ALLOWING THE W.P.NO. 33142 0F 2013 I DISMISSING THE W.P.NO. 29387 0F 2014 FOR NON-PROSECUTION I s r6f V'