Telangana High Court
WP/39204/2022 of Pabba Om Prakash Vs State of Telangana on 29 December 2022
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA - AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI |.A.NO.3 0F 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 39204 OF 2022 Between: AND 1 2 2 4 1. P. Veeresham, S/o Late P. Raiaiah, Aged 71
[ [3230 ]]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA -AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWOTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
|.A.NO.3 0F 2022
INWRIT PETITION NO: 39204 OF 2022
Between:
1. P. Veeresham, S/o Late P. Raiaiah, Aged 71 [years, ][Fl/o ][Plot No 40, New City]Colony, Near Ganga New Bowenpally, SecunderabadColony, Near Ganga New Bowenpally, Secunderabad
2. P. Radha Krishna, S/o Late P. Rajaiah, Aged 63 [years, ]Occ. Retd.
Government Service, Rl/o D. No. 5-2-291 I A, Hyderbasti, Secunderabad.3. P. Srinivasulu, S/o Late P. Rajaiah, Aged 60 [years, ]Occ. [Business, R/o Plot]No 86, 2nd Floor, Jeera Secunderabad.No 86, 2nd Floor, Jeera Secunderabad.
4. P. Dattu Ram, S/o Late P. Rajaiah, Aged 57 [years, ]Occ.- [Private employee,]R/o H.No. 1-3-1040 & 1041, Flat No 402, Shankarakranthi Apartments,Kavadiguda' Hyderabad R/o H.No. 1-3-1040 & 1041, Flat No 402, Shankarakranthi Apartments,Kavadiguda' Hyderabad
....pETrroNERs/RESpoNoENTs 4 To 7
AND
1The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, [Municipal]Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, [Hyderabad.]Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, [Hyderabad.]2The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by [its]Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.2The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by [its Deputy]citv Planner' circle-30' Begumpet' secunder{g;t,oNDENrs/RESpoNDENrs 1-3citv Planner' circle-30' Begumpet' secunder{g;t,oNDENrs/RESpoNDENrs 1-34Pabba Om Prakash, S/o. Late P. Rajaiah, Aged about. 64 [years, ]Occ.Business, Address, H. No. 5-2-325, 3rd Floor, *r::dP3BtLiSE[]?Fl3P,i,trr*Business, Address, H. No. 5-2-325, 3rd Floor, *r::dP3BtLiSE[]?Fl3P,i,trr*
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court may be [pleased ]torecall the order dated 2611012022 [passed ]in WP No. 39204 ol 2022, This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [petition ]and theaffidavit filed in support thereof and upon reading the Order daled 26.1O.2022 inW.P.No.39204 of 2022 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SrikanthHariharan, Counsel for the Petitioners in l.A.No.3 of 2022 and GP for MunicipalAdministration & Urban Development on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and of SriK. Ravinder Reddy, Standing counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and of Sri [V.]
l
I
Hariharan, Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Vivek Jain, counsel for RespondentNo. 4, the Court nrade the following:No. 4, the Court nrade 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
This Court on 26.10.2022 has passed an order by disposing of thewrit petition directing the respondents to take further steps within a periodeight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, in accordancewith law, by issuing proper notice to the unofficial respondents as well asto the persons who are in occupation of the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioners filed this application stating thatfirstly without giving an opportunity to the petitioners, who are respondentfirstly without giving an opportunity to the petitioners, who are respondentNos.4 to 7 in the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of and secondly,the respondent Corporation has seized the premised basing on the orderspassed by this Court.the respondent Corporation has seized the premised basing on the orderspassed by this Court.
Arguments
Sri V. Hariharan, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Vivek Jain,learned counsel for the 4th respondent, submits that the respondentcorporation, without following the due process of law, cannot seize thebuilding of the 4th respondent i.e., the petitioner in the writ petition.corporation, without following the due process of law, cannot seize thebuilding of the 4th respondent i.e., the petitioner in the writ petition.According to him, the said building is in a fit condition and he are relyingon a report given by some private structural engineer.on a report given by some private structural engineer.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that they have asked theEngineering Department to verify the structure stability. According to him,the key of the building is with the respondent Corporation.the key of the building is with the respondent Corporation.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners areresiding in the part of the building and they have issued a notice statingthat it is in dilapidated condition, they have vacated the premises and therespondent Corporation has seized the premised. When it comes to the 4thresiding in the part of the building and they have issued a notice statingthat it is in dilapidated condition, they have vacated the premises and therespondent Corporation has seized the premised. When it comes to the 4threspondent, who is a review petitioner, the petitioners have convenientlyleft him to leave the said premises in spite of the repeated notices given byleft him to leave the said premises in spite of the repeated notices given bythem. Coming to the contention of the learned senior counsel that nonotice is given to the petitioners before passing orders in this writ petition,this court is not able to appreciate the said contention, as this court in thenotice is given to the petitioners before passing orders in this writ petition,this court is not able to appreciate the said contention, as this court in theorder specifically directed the respondent corporation to issue notice andfollow due process of law and in accordance with law take steps. Secondly,follow due process of law and in accordance with law take steps. Secondly,this Court has not directed the respondent Corporation to seize the premises. So as far as that is concerned, there is no error apparent on theface of the order, which requires review of the same.
Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submits that they have notseized the premises and it is also submitted that they will take further stepsafter issuing the notice and after taking the structural stability report fromthe JNTU.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of."
Sd/- N. RAJ GOPALASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//l'-./.SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. One CC to Sri Vivek Jain Advocate [OPUC]
2. Two CCs to GP For Municipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]
One CC to Sri Srikanth Hariharan, Advocate(OPUC)
3.
4. One CC to K. Ravinder Reddy, Advocate(OPUC)5.Two CD CopiesMBC
@\[)D]
HIGH COURTLK,J
DATED: 2911212022
HE [ST4 ]r4:(eoO2 0 ,ul [7!?3]:-, [I].\:.ORDER
I.A.NO. 3 0F 2022IN
WR|T PETITION NO: 39204 OF 2A22
DISPOSING OF THE I.A.NO,3 OF 2022