Telangana High Court
WP/27587/2005 of Mohd.Ghouse Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep.by its on 28 December 2005
MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27587 of 2005 28.12.2005 Between: Mohd. Ghouse, S/o.Mohd. Hussain And another ... Petitioners AND The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad And others ...Respondents THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27587 of 2005 ORDER: The
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.27587 of 2005
28.12.2005
Between:
Mohd. Ghouse, S/o.Mohd. Hussain
And another
AND
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad
And others
... Petitioners
...Respondents
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
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:
WRIT PETITION No.27587 of 2005
The petitioners are owners of shops bearing Nos.22-7-488 & 489 and 22-7-490 &491 situated at Purani Haveli, Hydeabad. The third respondent acquired landadmeasuring 12.53 Sq.yards in one premises and 15.20 Sq.yards in other premisesfor the purpose of road widening. An award was passed on 13.2.2004 determiningthe compensation payable to the acquired property at Rs.1,20,902/-.
After passing the award when the Land Acquisition Officer sought to takepossession, the petitioners requested to mark the portion of the land acquired forroad widening. When the land was not marked, the petitioners filed W.P.No.6694 of2004 seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to mark the particular portionof the shops, which is part and parcel of acquired land, enabling the petitioners todemolish the marked portion so as to save the balance extent of their shops. ThisCourt disposed of the writ petition on 07.4.2004 directing the respondents to markthe portion of acquired land while observing that if the petitioners failed to demolish the marked portion within a period of one week from the date of completion ofmarking, the respondents would be at liberty to take steps to demolish the markedportion.
It is now alleged that the respondent is marking the petitioners’ property for thepurpose of demolition, which would result in the demolition of a portion, which wasnot acquired. On 21.12.2005, the third respondent issued a notice to the petitionersrequesting to demolish the marked portion as per the subdivision records. Thepetitioners allege that there was no such marking as on 21.12.2005, but thepetitioners themselves on their own demolished the portion, which was acquired toan extent of 12.53 Sq.yards and 15.20 Sq.yards. However, it is alleged that so as tobenefit the owner on the backside of the shops of the petitioners, the respondentsare bent upon demolishing the shops. Therefore, they filed the present writ petitionseeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from demolishingthe shops of the petitioners in excess of the area acquired under the award dated13.2.2004.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for revenue (Land Acquisition). It is brought to the notice of this Court thatthe petitioners after demolishing the acquired portion have constructed a wall clearlydelineating the margin of the widened road and therefore, the question of furtherdemolishing the petitioners’ property would not arise. The learned AssistantGovernment Pleader further submits that as the land to the extent of 12.53 Sq.yardsand 15.20 Sq.yards acquired from the petitioners was demolished, there cannot beany further demolition by the respondents as alleged. The same is recorded.
In view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, thewrit petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
December 28, 2005.
YS
_____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)