Telangana High Court
WP/26785/2006 of B. Srikanth Babu, Vs The Commissioner on 22 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P.No.26785 of 2006 Date : 22-12-2006 Between : B.Srikanth Babu and another .. Petitioners And The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P.No.26785 of 2006 ORDER: Heard
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.
Conclusion
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA
W.P.No.26785 of 2006
Date : 22-12-2006
Between :
B.Srikanth Babu and another ..Petitioners
And
The Commissioner,Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad,Lower Tank Bund,Hyderabad and another ..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANAW.P.No.26785 of 2006
ORDER:
Heard Sri Sambasiva Pratap, Counsel representingthe writ petitioners and Sri Ganta Rama Rao, the learnedstanding Counsel representing the respondents 1 and 2.
The Writ Petition is filed for a writ of mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents in trying to takepossession of the property belonging to the petitionerswithout issuing notice or initiating land acquisitionproceedings by following the procedure contemplatedunder Section 147 of the Hyderabad MunicipalCorporation Act 1955 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary tothe principles of natural justice and to pass such othersuitable orders.
The copies of sale deeds dated 28-8-1993 and 1-8-2003, copies of No objection certificates from theCommissioner of Police and the Fire Service Departmentand property tax payment receipts are produced before this Court as material papers. Several factual details arenarrated in paras 1 to 10 of the affidavit filed in support ofthe Writ Petition. The inconvenience to which thepetitioners would be put also had been highlighted.
This Court need not go into several of the factualdetails the reason being that it is needless to say that therespondents are bound to follow the due process of Lawas per the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal CorporationAct 1955 in the event of the respondents intending to takepossession of the property in question. In view of thesame, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing therespondents not to disturb the possession of thepetitioners in relation to the subject matter of the WritPetition unless and until the respondents follow the dueprocess of law. No costs.
________________
Justice P.S.Narayana
Date : 22-12-2006
AM