WP/26622/2006 of Shravan Kumar Naredi, Vs The Commissioener, on 22 December 2006

ORDER:

Heard Ms.Kalpana Ekbot, learned counsel representing thepetitioners. Smt.Jyothi Kiran takes notice on behalf of respondentNos.1 and 2. Learned Government Pleader for MunicipalAdministration takes notice on behalf of respondent No.3.

Ms.Kalpana Ekbot, learned counsel representing the WritPetitioners would submit that when a notice was issued, dated24.11.2006, the objections were filed on 02.12.2006 narrating severalparticulars in detail, and without considering the objections, there arecontinuous threats of demolition by respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Smt.Jyothi Kiran, learned Standing Counsel representingrespondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that in the event of taking furtheraction, respondent Nos.1 and 2 would follow further due process oflaw.

Heard the counsel.

The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring theaction of respondent No.2 in issuing the proceedingsNo.9/RW/ACP/C5/MCH/2006, dated 24.11.2006, as illegal, arbitrary,unjust and against the principles of natural justice, and consequentlydirect the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possessionand enjoyment of the petitioners’ House bearing Nos.8-2-626/5/B + 8-2-626/5/C, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and pass suchsuitable orders.

Several factual details are narrated in para Nos.2, 3 and 4 of theaffidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The notice, dated24.11.2006, reads as hereunder: - MUNCIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERBAD

O/o.Asst.City Planner,Town Planning Section, Circle V,Khairthabad, Hyderabad.

No.9/RW/ACP/C5/MCH/2006 Dated:24.11.2006

ToSri Ram Avathar Agarwal Neredi8-2-226/5-CRoad No.1, Banjara Hills.

Sir,

Sub: MCH - T P. Section – Circle V – Road Widening from Nagarjuna Junction to Masab Tank Junctionfor proposed 100’-00” wide road – Regarding.****

With reference to the subject cited, I am herewithenclosing a copy of the plan showing the premises bearingNo.

8-2-226/5-C situated at Road No.1, B.Hills which is gettingeffected under road widening from Nagarjuna Junction toMasab Tank Junction for proposed 100’-00” wide road,Hyderabad, as per Z.D.P. and approved R.D.P.

In the said widening programme your premises No.8-2-226/5-C is getting affected to a depth of 16 to 12 admeasuring160.2 Sq. yds/Sq.mts.

Therefore, while enclosing the plan of the affectedportion, you are requested to extend your co-operation withMCH by exercising your consent to handover advancepossession of the area affected in Road Widening to MCH inthe public interest.

The M.C.H. will arrange to pay the compensation forstructural valuation in respect of the affected portion or youwill be allowed to avail the concessions as prescribed by theGovernment in G.O.Ms.No.483, dated 24-8-1998 for the re-development of balance area. The MCH will re-construct thecompound wall and sump, etc, affected under road widening.Your co-operation in the public interest is earnestlysolicited.

Yours faithfully, Sd/- ASST.CITY PLANNER, CIRCLE.V,M.C.H.The objections raised in the reply letter, dated 02.12.2006,addressed to the Chief City Planner, the contents thereof read ashereunder:-

“With reference to the above cited, we wish to inform you thatthe Door No. mentioned by you as 8-2-226/5/C in our namedoes not pertain to us. Our Door no. is :8-2-625/5/C. Thusplease inform us if the letter submitted by you pertains to us,and just in case if it is a writing error, then we request you toclarify us on the below given points:

1. You haven’t mentioned the final time forstarting/commencement of the demolition process for thepurpose of road widening.

2. There is no mention of the compensation that will beallowed for the property being acquired.

3. Copy of the GOMs No: 483 dated 24.8.1998 asmentioned in your letter is not enclosed. We as a laymandon’t have sufficient knowledge of the contents in this GO andso are unable to plan out on what benefits we can exactly getfrom this.

4. Your letter is not in the prescribed format and it is difficultto understand if this is just a letter, or a notice or an intimationor a request to us to give our land for road widening.

5. There is already 85 Feet Existing Road in front of ourproperty, which means that it needs to be widened by around15 feet more. But the markings specified by you show as 16fton side of our property and 12ft on another side of ourproperty. There is no marking visible on the property on theother side of the road opposite to our property. If road is to bewidened by 15ft, then it is not understandable and not justifiedthat almost the complete 15ft needs to be sacrificed by usfrom our property. We request you to kindly check into thismatter and as the existing road in front of our property is 85ft,we request you to kindly divide the balance 15ft into twoportions and let us share only 7.5 ft maximum in this roadwidening.

6. Our original Registered property is of 852 sq.yards., butwhen we had applied for the construction of our house in1985, we were asked to leave some area in the front of ourproperty. We had done so and had not taken anycompensation from you at that time so that we could utilizethe same in FSI, set backs and redevelopment of the balancearea whenever required. We need clarification as to what willbe the status of the then acquired property.

We request you to kindly provide us clarification on the abovementioned points and plan any further step after furtherdiscussions and consent from us. After getting answers forthe above points from you, we will be able to further plan outand shall get back to you.

Please understand that this instant letter of yours has comeas a shock to us and we need some time to plan out all furtherthings.

Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this letter and oblige”

It is needless to say that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are bound toconsider such objections raised by the petitioners before proceedingfor demolition activity. In view of the same, respondent Nos.1 and 2are hereby directed to consider the objections and proceed further inaccordance with law if need be and till the said exercise iscompleted, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained.

The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as tocosts.

Dt:22.12.2006Note: Issue C.C in one week.B/o. vv/bsb __________________

(P.S.NARAYANA, J)