← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/39276/2016dismissed no costs

Narsing Bhan Singh v. The State Of Telangana,

2016-11-15P Naveen Rao3 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.39276 OF 2016 DATED : 15.11.2016 Between :

Narsing Bhan Singh S/o.Late Sri Laxman Singh, Aged about 65 yrs, Occu : Sugar Cane Wholesale Business, Opposite side of the road to Jhamsing Venkateshwara Temple, Gudimalkapur, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad.

..

Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.

..

Respondents This court made the following :

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.39276 OF 2016 ORDER :

Petitioner claims that he has been occupying a piece of land which originally belong to a temple and eking out his livelihood for the last more than 40 years. The Municipal Corporation is now seeking to displace him from the said property without following the due process of law, and if the petitioner is thrown out of the property in issue, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.

2.

The property in which petitioner claims to be carrying out his avocation, did not contain any details such as survey number, municipal number etc. The so called temple which is alleged to have granted permission to the petitioner is not made a party. No document is filed to show that lease or permission was granted to the petitioner by the temple management. No material is filed to show that the petitioner has been paying lease amount and that he is in valid occupation of the property which is sought to be removed. Petitioner only enclosed document issued by Controller, Legal Metrology, Hyderabad, which is with reference to quality of weighing machine and has nothing to do with the status of the property.

Furthermore, it does not contain any details whether the alleged business is being carried out at the premises claimed by petitioner even according to the certificate issued by the Controller, Legal Metrology.

throw him out. The petition is mis-conceived and is liable to be dismissed.

3.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 15th November, 2016 Rds