Telangana High Court
WP/365/2005 of Md. Hameed Dashti, Vs Government of India, rep. by Secretary, on 30 December 2005
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI BILAL NAZKI, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 365 of 2005 Between: 1 Md.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI BILAL NAZKI, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 365 of 2005
Between:
1 Md. Hameed Dashti, S/o. Mohamood Dashti, Plot No. 1, First Floor, Bapu Bagh Colony, Plot No. 1, First Floor, Bapu Bagh Colony, Beside Food World, Prenderghast Road, Secunderabad.
2 Mukhtar Dahkhani, S/o. Ahmed Ali Dehkhani, R/o. Plot No.9, Viman Nagar Colony, Secunderabad.
AND
..... PETITIONERS
1 Government of India, rep. by Secretary, Law and Legislative Affiars, New Delhi.
2 Begum Pasha, W/o. Khaieel Ahmed Khan, R/o. 287/A, Nallagutta, Secunderabad. R/o. 287/A, Nallagutta, Secunderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Bilal Nazki, The Acting Chief Justice)
In this case, vacate stay petition has been filed. Constitutional validity of amendmentto Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act has been challenged in this writto Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act has been challenged in this writ petition.
It is fairly conceded at the bar that this matter is covered by a judgment of theSupreme Court reported in Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana and others.
Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable, and is, accordingly,dismissed. No costs.
At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks time to vacate thepremises as it is a commercial property and it will take some time to find alternativeaccommodation. After hearing both the parties, we grant him time to vacate thepremises till 31[st] of December, 2005. There shall be an unconditional stay for a period of threeweeks from today. Within three weeks, the petitioners shall file an undertakingbefore the trial Court that they shall vacate and hand over the premises to therespondent-landlord by or before 31[st] of December, 2005. If such an undertaking isnot given within the time stipulated, the respondent-landlord shall be at liberty toseek eviction through appropriate proceedings. It is also made clear that thepetitioners shall continue to pay the rents for the period for which they are permittedto occupy the premises.
(Bilal Nazki, A.C.J)
---------------------------------
30[th] August, 2005
LUR
(R.Subhash Reddy, J)
---------------------------------