WP/24339/2004 of Abdul Nagi, Vs Assistant City Planner, on 31 December 2004

ORDER:

The petitioners allege that they are owners of the premises bearing No.5-5-281,Nampally, Hyderabad. They filed this writ petition alleging that on 22.12.2004 thefirst respondent came to the locality and gave cheques for Rs.1,50,000/- and askedthem to handover the premise. He also threatened the petitioners that if petitionersare not handedover the premises by taking the cheques, the building would bedemolished. Therefore, the petitioners submit that any such action without dueprocess of law under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act,1955 or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or other laws is arbitrary and illegal.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Municipal Corporation.

In P.Lakshmana Rao v. Executive Officer, a Division Bench of this Court issueddirections to be followed by Municipal authorities, Panchayat authorities andRevenue authorities for acquiring the land for public purpose. Having regard to thedecision of the Division Bench, I have considered similar issue in a number of writpetitions and culled out various principles of law to be followed by the Governmentwhile acquiring/utilizing the private land for road widening. The principles werereiterated by my learned brother, Sri Justice B.Sudershan Reddy in M.MadhaviLatha v. Rajendranagar Municipality. The principles laid down by the DivisionBench are as follows.

(1). Where a property is required for public purpose viz., widening of roads or for anyother purpose, the authorities straightaway cannot take law into their hands and jump intothe premises, dispossess or evict the occupants or demolish the property.

(2). If the authorities concerned want to take action for eviction/dispossession of theoccupants or demolition, they shall issue 60 days’ prior notice notifying as to the nature ofthe property, the property to whom it belongs and the proposed action calling forexplanation/objections, if any, from the occupants. On receipt of such objections, if there isany objection as to the ownership of the property, the authorities should determine theextent of encroachment or unauthorised occupation and also determine whether the

property in question belongs to Government/any other local self Government or authority orthe occupants and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt ofthe objections, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the occupants.

(3). In case where demolition of private property has already been made, theauthorities shall determine the damages on the basis of the assessment to be made by theEngineer of the Roads and Buildings Department and disburse the amount of damagesquantified forthwith.

(4). If the demolition is in respect of local bodies’ Government property, the questionof damages does not arise. In such an event, the occupant shall be entitled to remove thematerial used for the construction.

(5). In case of demolition of private property, the authorities concerned shalldetermine the loss caused to the occupants on the basis of the assessment to be made bythe Engineer of R&B Department and on such assessment of damages, the concernedauthorities shall take appropriate steps to disburse the amount quantified forthwith.

(6). If there is any claim for grant/assessment of the property, the concernedauthorities shall consider the same in accordance with law taking into consideration theeligibility and the entitlement of occupants, after making enquiry and till such claim isdecided, there shall be status quo obtaining as on today regarding the structures.

The writ petition is disposed of as above directing maintenance of status quoas on today. No costs.

_________________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

28.3.2003

bnr

Note: CC by 31.3.2003

(B.O)

bnr

To

1 The Assistant City Planner, T.P.Circle No.6, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Abids, Hyderabad.

2 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

3 Two C.D. Copies.