Telangana High Court
WP/27795/2007 of Nanda Devi Agarwal, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by on 27 December 2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27795 of 2007 27.12.2007 Between: Nanda Devi Agarwal … Petitioner AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad & others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Mohd. Zia-Ul-Haque Counsel for
HON’BLE SRI JUSTSICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 27795 of 2007
27.12.2007
Between:
Nanda Devi Agarwal
… Petitioner
AND
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,Rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad& others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Mohd. Zia-Ul-Haque Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 : Sri Kodanda Rama Rao for Smt. Kalpana Ekbote
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.
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare theaction of the respondents in not initiating the proceedings for acquiringthe petitioner’s land under the provisions of Section 147 of theHyderabad Municipalities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) as illegal andarbitrary.
The only grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 1 and2 are seeking to take over her property, namely; house bearing No.6-3-699/2 situated at Punjagutta, Hyderabad without initiating theproceedings under Section 147 of the Act, as evident from letter dated12.11.2007 issued by the Town Planning Section of respondent No.1- Corporation.
At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat as the petitioner is not willing to part with her property by consent,as envisaged under Section 146 of the Act, the only alternativeavailable to the respondents, if they seek to acquire the property, is tofollow the procedure envisaged under Section 147 of the Act.
Sri Kodanda Rama Rao representing Smt. Kalpana Ekbote,learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted thatif the petitioner is not willing to give her consent, as sought for underletter dated 12.11.2007, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 will not forciblydispossess her, without initiating proceedings under Section 147 of theAct.
In view of the statement made by the learned counsel forrespondent Nos. 1 and 2, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No. 36358of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.
27.12.2007ksld
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J