IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4491 of 2008 Between: Smt.B.Leela D/o. B.Ramdas R/o. H.No.2-3-449, Gadiyan Bagh, Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Municipal Corporation Of Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Town Planning Officer, Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Secunderabad Division, S.D. Road, Secunderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerabagh, Hyderabad 4 The Station House Officer, Ramgopalpet Police Station, Secunderabad. 5 Mr.Karan Singh S/o. Babban Singh R/o. D.No. 2468, Rangren Bazar, Opp : Mahankali Temple, Secunderabad. 6 Mr. Bhawarlal Jain S/o. Lalchand Jain R/o. H.No. 7-2-709, Pot Market, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in supporting to the respondent No.5 and 6 in demolishing the petitioner's house bearing Municipal No. 2-3-449, Gadiya Bagh, Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300- A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to protect the petitioner's property and right and ensure the interference of the 5th and 6the respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoying the petitioner premises bearing H.No. 2-3-449, Gadiyan Bagh, Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad without due procedure established by law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.VENKATASATYAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt.B.Leela with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of The Station House Officer, Ramgopalpet Police Station, Secunderabad-4th respondent in supporting Mr.Karan Singh S/o.Babban Singh-5th respondent and Mr.Bhawarlal Jain S/o.Lalchand Jain-6th respondent in demolishing her house bearing Municipal No. 2-3-449, Gadiya Bagh, Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 2. Petitioner claims to be the daughter of B.Ramdas, who purchased the house bearing No.2-3-449 admeasuring 365 sq. yards consisting of four rooms for a sum of Rs.25,000/- from Smt.Shehzadi Bai W/o.late Bahadur Singh and Bhagirat Singh S/o.Hanuman Singh, under an agreement of sale dated 11.01.1985. Her father expired on 22.06.1999 leaving behind her as his legal heir. Whileso, the Station House Officer, Ramgopalpet Police Station, Secunderabad-4th respondent called her and her husband to the police station on 25.02.2008 and made them to remain in the police station from 9.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. By the time they returned home, they found that their house is demolished by Mr.Karan Singh-5th respondent and Mr.Bhawarlal Jain-6th respondent. Hence, this writ petition with a prayer stated supra. 3. Notice before admission has been ordered on 26.03.2008. Respondents 5 and 6 entered appearance through a counsel and filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that they initiated rent control proceedings against B.Ramdas, who is the father of the petitioner, and eviction has been ordered by the Rent Controller in R.C.No.173 of 1997 on the file of XVIII Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad. B.Ramdas died pending the rent control proceedings. His Legal Representatives including the present petitioner came on record and challenged the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller by filing an appeal being R.A. No.164 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 25.04.2006 by the learned Additional Chief Judge. Thereafter, they filed C.R.P.No.5843 of 2006. The C.R.P. came to be disposed of by this Court on 29.11.2006. The relevant portion of the order passed in the C.R.P. reads as hereunder: “On behalf of the petitioners, several contentions have been urged, touching on the merits of the matter. This Court does not find the necessity to deal with the same, in view of the fact that the order of eviction has already been executed on 27.09.2006 and the bailiff of the Court had delivered the possession of the property to the respondents. It is stated that since the petitioners did not take delivery of the material lying on the schedule property, it was entrusted to the respondents for safe custody by the Court bailiff. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients may be permitted to take the said material. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to remove the material from the schedule property and for this purpose, the learned Rent Controller shall depute its bailiff; and the respondents shall also cooperate, in the matter of delivery of the material. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2-Corporation; learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents 3 and 4, and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and her husband were made to sit in the police station on 25.02.2008 from 9.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and during that period, the premises in their occupation came to be demolished by the respondents 5 and 6 and therefore, the action of the respondents 5 and 6 is illegal and arbitrary. 6. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is nowhere stated in the writ affidavit with regard to the proceedings taken out under the provisions of the Rent Control Act by the owners of the premises. The respondents 5 and 6 placed enough material on record to show that the petitioner and others, who are the legal representatives of late B.Ramdas, came to be dispossessed through the process of the Court. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that respondents 5 and 6 demolished the constructions without putting them on notice has no substance. Therefore, the writ petition deserved to be dismissed at the admission state for suppression of material facts. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission state. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:26th June, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}