Telangana High Court
WP/28257/2007 of Gowrishankar Sanghi Vs The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its on 31 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 28257 of 2007 Date: 31.12.2007 Between: Gowrishankar Sanghi … Petitioner AND The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad rep., by its Commissioner, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 28257 of 2007
Date: 31.12.2007
Between:Gowrishankar Sanghi
… PetitionerANDThe Municipal Corporation of Hyderabadrep., by its Commissioner, Hyderabad& another.… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Vidyasagar Counsel for the respondents: Sri Kodanda Rama Rao for Smt. Kalpana Ekbote THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No. 28257 of 2007
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.
ORDER:-
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declareletter dated 20.11.2007/05.12.2007, as irrational and withoutjurisdiction. The petitioner also sought for a consequentialdirection to set aside the said letter.
The only grievance of the petitioner as reflected in theaverments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition and as projected by Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel forthe petitioner at the hearing is that the respondents are seeking toutilize a part of the petitioner’s premises bearing No.21-2-444situated at Mittika Sher, Hyderabad for proposed road wideningwithout initiating proceedings under the provisions of theHyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’).
Sri Kodanda Rama Rao representing Smt. Kalpana Ekbote,learned Standing Counsel for the respondents stated that if thepetitioner is not willing to surrender the property in pursuance ofletter dated 20.11.2007/05.12.2007, the respondents shall notforcibly dispossess the petitioner without initiating the proceedingsunder Section 147 of the Act.
In view of this statement of the learned counsel, the writpetition is disposed of. The respondents shall not dispossess thepetitioner or in any manner interfere with his possession in respectof premises bearing No.21-2-444 of Mittika Sher, Hyderabadwithout initiating proceedings under the Act.
It is, however, made clear that as and when suchproceedings are initiated, the petitioner is at liberty to question thesame, if he is so advised.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition,WPMP.No.36930 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief isdisposed of as infructuous.
Date: 31.12.2007ES
____________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J