Telangana High Court
WA/2172/2004 of Syed Ali Quadri, Vs The District Collector, on 29 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 2172 of 2004 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO : 2172 of 2004
(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated08/12/2004 in WP NO : 22610 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.)08/12/2004 in WP NO : 22610 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.)
Between:
Syed Ali Quadri, s/o Late Syed Hussain Quadri,R/o 20-2-521, Hussainialam, Hyderabad.
AND
..... APPELLANT
1 The District Collector, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad.Hyderabad.
3 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner, Circle -IV, Khairthabad, Hyderabad. Commissioner, Circle -IV, Khairthabad, Hyderabad.
4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad.Hyderabad.
Counsel for the Appellant : MR.NAZIR AHMED KHANCounsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 : GP FOR REVENUECounsel for the respondent No.3: MR. RAMA RAO GANTA.
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
( per Hon’ble The Chief Justice )
……
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition. Appellantalleged that he is the absolute owner of the lands bearing Sy.Nos. 54 and 55of Gudimalkapur village, corresponding to T.S.No.36, MCH No. 12-2-342,admeasuring Ac.2.12 guntas, situated at Syed Ali Guda, Hyderabad.Appellant’s case is that since lands are in the custody of the Government, hehad filed a petition in Case No.B/1464/2000 before 2[nd] respondent to conductInam enquiry and to confirm the grant in his favour in respect of the lands. Thesaid proceedings were disposed of on 06.06.2002 with direction to thepetitioner – appellant to get a succession certificate. Petitioner approachedthe Civil Court and filed suit for declaration, which is pending. Pending said litigation, petitioner made request to respondents 1 and 2, in whose custodythe land is, to ensure that the property is kept in tact free from allencroachments and since respondents failed to do the same, writ petition wasfiled. Learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the ground thatappellant as of today had no title over the lands and of course respondentsare bound to take care of the said lands from any encroachments.
2. We are informed that earlier a writ petition was filed wherein direction wasissued to the respondents to protect the property and since writ petition wasdisposed of, the order has come to an end.
3. There is no manner of doubt that respondents, who are having custodyover the property, are bound to keep the property in tact and on petitionerproducing succession certificate, they are bound to hand over the same to thepetitioner free from all encroachments. Therefore, when the property is in thecustody of the respondents 1 and 2, they have to ensure that encroachments,if any, are removed by taking all possible and effective steps and in case anyperson is carrying on any construction illegally without obtaining appropriatesanction from 3[rd] respondent, it is an obligation on the part of 3[rd] respondentto gear up its machinery and ensure that all constructions made withoutobtaining any permission are removed in accordance with law.
4. In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Writ petition isallowed with direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take all effective measuresfor protecting the property and keep it free from encroachments andrespondent No.3 is directed to ensure that in case any construction has beenmade without obtaining prior sanction, the same shall beremoved/demolished. No costs.
Dated: 29.12.2004.
VRK.
Note:
Furnish cc in three days.
(BO)
_____________________
DEVINDER GUPTA. C.J.,
______________________
M. NARAYANA REDDY. J.,
To
1 The District Collector, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad.Hyderabad.
3 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Circle -IV, Khairthabad, Hyderabad.
4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad.Hyderabad.
5. Two CCs to G.P. for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
6. Two CD copies.
HON’BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. NARAYANA REDDY.
W.A.NO. 2172 OF 2004.
( Judgment of the Bench delivered byHon’ble The Chief Justice )