High Court for State of TelanganaWP/34234/2015disposed of no costs

Md.Imran Ali S/O Md.Osman Ali v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

2016-02-11C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy3 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.34234 OF 2015 DATED:11-02-2016 Between:

Md. Imran Ali and others ... Petitioners And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep.by its Special Officer-cum-Commissioner Tank Bund Road Hyderabad and others ... Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: None appeared COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1: Mr. N. Ashok Kumar, Standing Counsel for GHMC COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2: Mr. V. Venugopala Rao COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3: A.G.P. for Municipal Administration (TS)

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER:

Feeling aggrieved by the proposed demolition of the building bearing No.10-2-289/4, Udyog Bhavan Trust, A.C. Guards, Opposite Mahaveer Hospital, Hyderabad, comprising Shop Nos.1 to 12, 15 to 17 (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject property'), the tenants of the said shops have filed this writ petition.

At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. I have heard Mr. N. Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, and Mr. V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2 is the owner of the subject property. All the petitioners are admittedly the tenants of the said premises. Respondent No.1 has approached respondent No.2 for consent for demolition of the subject property for the purpose of road widening and the latter has given its consent. However, the petitioners, who are in occupation of the property, as tenants, have not been put on notice, nor their consent has been obtained by respondent No.1. As held by the Full Bench of this Court in Ushodaya Publications, Hyderabad v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and another[1], the tenants are entitled to a notice before the property is acquired by following the procedure either under Section 146 or under Section 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. As this procedure is not followed, respondent No.

1 is directed to follow the said procedure as explained by this Court in Ushodaya Publications (supra) before proceeding further with the proposed acquisition. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.

2015 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

_______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11-02-2016 bnr [1] 2001 (3) ALD 173 (FB)