Telangana High Court
WP/24291/2004 of P. Lakshmi Bai, Vs Union of India, on 27 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 24291 of 2004 Between: P. Lakshmi Bai, W/o. Late Sri Laxmipathi, R/o. H.No. 10-8-108,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION No. 24291 of 2004
Between:
P. Lakshmi Bai, W/o. Late Sri Laxmipathi,R/o. H.No. 10-8-108, Draupathi Temple, Chilkalguda, Bolakpur Village, Secunderabad.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. 2 The Estate Officer and Addl. Divisional Railway Manager, Hyderabad Division, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.
2 The Estate Officer and Addl. Divisional Railway Manager,
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toIssue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus by declaring the impugned order dated. nil-11-2004 in Proceedings No.YW/274/WV/Evic., passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and withoutjurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set-asidethe same.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.G.S.SANGHI, SC FOR RAILWAYS
The Court at the stage of admission 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.
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel forRespondents.
The present writ petiton is filed challenging the order of eviction passed by thesecond respondent under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises Eviction ofUnauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 vide impugned proceedings dated .11.2004.
The petitioner claims to be in possession of property house bearing No.10-8-108,Chilkalguda, Draupathi Temple, Secunderabad admeasuring 4876 sq.mtrs. It isstated that in the said land, a Draupathi Temple is in existence since more than 80years and that petitioner’s family members were managing the said temple and theywere continued to be in possession of the said property. It is also stated that therespondents who were also claiming the property, without issuing any notice to thepetitioner, have passed the impugned order of eviction of the petitioner purported tobe under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised OccupantsAct, 1971. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order waspassed in arbitrary exercise of power and authority without following principles ofnatural justice.
The learned counsel for respondents submit that since the petitioner wasunsuccessful in proving her title and possession over the property in question beforevarious Courts, the impugned order was passed after issuing due notice in theleading newspapers on 10.10.2004 under the provisions of Public PremisesEviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971. He also submits that, against theimpugned order, the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of appeal under In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of granting leave and liberty to thepetitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Public PremisesEviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971, against the impugned order of thesecond respondent dated .11.2004 within four weeks from today. Till such time,there shall be Status quo as regards possession of the property shall be maintained by the parties.There shall be no order as to costs.
Date: 27.12.2004
_____________
N.V.RAMANA, J
DA
To
1 The General Manager, Union of India, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.
2 The Estate Officer and Addl. Divisional Railway Manager, Hyderabad Division, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.
3 Two C.D.copies.