IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20713 of 2008 Between: 1 M/s.Bhaskar Enterprises, rep.by its Managing PArtner Sri Srinivas Rao Kale,S/o.Late Shri K.Gopal Rao, N.No.5-1- 524/11,12,13,14 & 15 Jambagh,Hyderabad 2 M/s.R.K.Agencies, rep.by its Proprietor Shri Rajesh C.Deshai S/o.C.V.Deshai M.No.5-1-524/1 Jambagh,Hyderabad 3 M/s.Seema Engineering Works, rep.by its Proprietor Shri K.Neeraj Singh,S/o.late Shri Nand Kishore Singh, M.No.5- 1-524/2 &3 Jambagh,Hyderabad 4 M/s.Andhra Small Tools Supplying Co., rep.by its Proprietor Shri Zainuddin M.S.S/o.Late Mohammed Ali M.No.5-1-524/4 Jambagh,Hyderabad 5 M/s. Hari Engineering Works, rep.by its Proprietor Smt.H.Meena,W/o.Shri H.Venkatesh M.No.5-1-524/5 Jambagh,Hyderabad 6 M/s.General Mechanical Works, rep.by its partner Shri T.Krishna,S/o.T.Sankaraiah M.No.5-1-524/6 Jambagh,Hyderabad 7 M/s.New Palace Photo Studio, rep.by its Proprietor S.Harinath,S/.o.S.Shankaraiah M.No.5-1-524/7 Jambagh,Hyderabad 8 M/s.Premier Tailors,rep.byits Proprietor M.Raju S/o.M.Bithal Rao M.No.5-1-524/8 Jambagh,Hyderabad 9 M/s.Vijaylaxmi Electricals, rep.by its Proprietor Suresh Singh, S/o.Sri Mohan Singh M.No.5-1-524/9 Jambagh,Hyderabad 10 M/s.Tulasi Pumps, rep.by its partner Shri Santosh K.Gupta S/o.B.K.Gupta, M.No.5-1-524/10 Jambagh,Hyderabad (Petitioners 2 to 10 are represented by 1st petitioner) ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Chief Commissioner,Tank Bund,Hyderabad 2 The Assistant City Planner,Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Abids circle,Hyderabad 3 Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, rep.by its Chairman,Greenlands,Guest House,Greenlands, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction and thereby declare the action of the respondents meant to dispossess the petitioners from their tenaments is illegal, arbitrary, and also violation of principles of natural justice and hence direct them not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective premises bearing M.No.5-1- 524/1 to M.No.5-1-524/15 Jambagh,Hyderabad without due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.P.V.RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. M.DHANUMJAY REDDY, S.C. FOR HMDA. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners, who are 10 in number assailing the action of the respondents in dispossessing them from the premises bearing M.No.5-1-524/1 to M.No.5-1-524/15 without following the due process of law. 2. The petitioners claim to be the tenants of the respective premises in their occupation. The premises is owned by M/s.Vivek Vardhini Education Society’s Trust, Hyderabad. The premises in occupation of the petitioners are likely to be aﬀected in road widening. Therefore, the respondents have given markings of the aﬀected portion. The petitioners approached this Court complaining that they were not put on notice in the proceedings initiated for demolition of the premises in their occupation, which are being aﬀected in the road widening. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission on 22.09.2008, Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel of GHMC received notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. 4. 2nd respondent ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. Kishan Deshpande, Deputy Commissioner, Circle-8 (Old Circle-6), GHMC, Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the notices have been served on some of the petitioners directing them to vacate the premises, as the premises in their occupation are required for road widening. It is also stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the owner of the premises has given consent for demolition of the premises, which are being aﬀected in road widening. For better appreciation, I may refer para.3 of the counter-aﬃdavit and it reads as hereunder: “3. Pursuant to the said Road Development Plan, a detailed survey was conducted and either side of the road 99 (ninety nine) properties are getting aﬀected and pursuant to the same Consent Letter was prepared and served on the owner of the property in question way back on 27.05.2003, requesting the owner to give consent in terms of Section 146 of the H.M.C.Act, 1955, oﬀering the beneﬁts such as additional ﬂoors and additional F.S.I., as applicable in terms of G.O’s which are in force. Consequently the owner of the premises in question has forwarded their consent vide their letter Ref.VVES/Trust/2007, dated 07.08.2007. Pursuant to the said consent given by the owner of the premises in question, the amount of compensation was calculated in respect of Premises Nos.5-1-524/1 to 16 to a total sum of Rs.27,67,460/- and prepared a Cheque bearing No.035161, dated 16.09.2008.” 5. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing, it is taken up for ﬁnal disposal with the consent of the counsel for the parties. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are in occupation of the premises, were not put on notice and therefore, the action of the respondents in demolishing a portion of the premises in the occupation of the petitioners is contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the Rules framed thereunder. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that notices have been served on some of the petitioners. Copies of the notices allegedly served on some of the petitioners have been placed on record. 9. I have gone through the copies of the notices enclosed to the counter-aﬃdavit. The counter-aﬃdavit has been sworn to by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle-8, GHMC, Hyderabad. I do not see any reason to doubt the statement made by the oﬃcer in the cadre of Deputy Commissioner of the GHMC, Hyderabad. I am satisﬁed that the respondents 1 and 2 are proceeding with the demolition of the premises in occupation of the petitioners after putting them on notice. However, since the petitioners are stated to be in occupation of the premises since quite a long time, they require some breathing time to vacate the premises. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondents to allow two months time to the petitioners to vacate the premises subject to the petitioners giving undertaking before the 2nd respondent within a week from today to the eﬀect that they would vacate the premises on or before expiry of two months. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:26th September, 2008. Note: Issue C.C. by 29.09.2008. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}