Telangana High Court
WP/24721/2004 of Smt. B. Balamma, Vs The Commissioner, Alwal Municipality, on 30 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 24721 of 2004 Between: Smt. B. Balamma, w/o Late B. Sabhapathy, R/o H.No. 235, Chintal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION No. 24721 of 2004
Between:
Smt. B. Balamma, w/o Late B. Sabhapathy,R/o H.No. 235, Chintal Bazar, Bolarum, Secunderabad.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Commissioner, Alwal Municipality, Alwal, R.R. District.
2 The Station House Officer, Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.Hyderabad.
3 Mr. Shaik Hussain, S/o Shaik Ismail,
4 Mr. Shaik Noor Ahmed, S/o Shaik Ismail, (R3 and R4 R/o H.No. 7-70, Temple Aalwal, Ranga Reddy District).
.....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 any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature ofMandamus, declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not demolishing thepremises No. 7-70, Temple Alwal, R.R. District, by evicting the respondent Nos. 1and 2 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitutionof India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to demolish the saidpremises forthwith.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.P.VENUGOPALCounsel for Respondents : G.P. FOR HOME
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:
The petitioner claims to be owner of house bearing No.7-70, Temple Alwal, Ranga Reddy district having purchased the same through aregistered sale deed dated 24-4-1957. The said house is stated to have been let outby the petitioner to the father of 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents herein, and after death, theycontinued in the tenancy. It is stated that the subject house is old and is in adilapidated condition and that the petitioner made a representation dated 26-4-2004to the first respondent to inspect the premises and take appropriate steps in thematter. The petitioner states that the first respondent having inspected the subjecthouse, issued notice dated 7-6-2004 under Section 251 of A.P. Municipalities Act,1965 directing her to vacate the said house within three days for taking steps fordemolition. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner is stated to have approachedthe 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents requesting them to vacate the premises in vain. Thegrievance of the petitioner is that though the subject house is in dilapidatedcondition, the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents are not taking steps to demolish the house ofthe petitioner and the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents are continuing to reside in the saidhouse.
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home andthe learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality.
Admittedly, on the representation made by the petitioner that her house has becomeold and is in a dilapidated condition, the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents issued noticecalling upon her to vacate the house within three days for taking steps fordemolishing. Inasmuch as the petitioner is the owner of the house, the 1[st] and 2[nd]respondents gave notice to her, and if persons other than the owner, are residing inthe house, it is for the petitioner to ensure that no person is in occupation of thehouse, the demolition of which, request was made, so that the 1[st] and 2[nd]respondents can take action for its demolition, and certainly no fault can be foundwith the action of the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents in not issuing any notice to the 3[rd] and4[th] respondents, calling upon them to vacate the house for its demolition, and moreso when they are not the owners of the house, but merely tenants of the petitioner.
The writ petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Date: 30.12.2004
_____________
N.V.RAMANA, J
TVK/DA
To
1 The Commissioner, Alwal Municipality, Alwal, R.R. District.2 The Station House Officer, Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.2 The Station House Officer, Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.
3 Two CCs to the G.P. for Home, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.
4 Two CD copies.