LawSphereX

MD. VIKHARUDDIN AHMED, v. PRL.SECY., M.A. AND U.D., HYD., AND 5 OTHERS,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: K.LAKSHMAN

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-04. MD. VIKHARUDDIN AHMED, v. PRL.SECY., M.A. AND U.D., HYD., AND 5 OTHERS,. Read the judgment and...

Judgment text

[ 3168 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION NO: 32668 OF 2014 Between: MD, Vikharuddin Ahmed, S/o: MA Nayeem, age 27 yea$, R/o 2-B-131,01d colony, Sirpur-Kaghaznagar, Adilabad district. Telanana State. ... PETITIONER AND 1. State of Telangana, represented by its Principal secretary lvlunicipal Administration secretariat , Hyd erabad. 2. District Collector, Adilabad district, Adilabad. 3. Sub-Collector, Asifabad, Adilabad district, Telangana state. 4. IVlunicipal Commissioner, sirpur kaghaznagar [VunicipalitySirpur Kaghaznagar, Adilabad district. 5. Tahsildar, Sirpur -Kaghaznagaar Mandal Adilabad District. 6. Gulam Ahmed, S/o: JanMohamad DNO1-2-73/2,Beside Arabic school Near Ambedkar Chowk, Kaghaznagar Adilabad district. ...

RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order more Particularly writ of IUANDAMUS by declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in not taking any action on representation dated 7-1O-2O14 filed by the Petitioner is illegal arbitrary voilative ariicle 14,21 and 300 A of the constitution of India, and direct the 4th respondent dispose of the representation dated 7-10-2014 in view of Memo no G1925t2013 Dt:lB-9-2O1q issued by the 3rd Respondent Consequently direct the respondent hand over the possession of Plot No 47 B to the Petitioner forthwith. l. A. NO: 2OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 1531 OF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to hand over the possession of the Plot No. 47B, extent 30X100 feets i.

e. , 333. 33 square yards to the petitioner forthwith by demolishing the illegal construction ofthe 6th respondent, in the interest ofjustice l. A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WP MP. NO: 40832OF2014 '151 Petition under Section CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent dispose of the representation dated 7-10-2014 inview of Memo no G192512013 dt:1 8-9-201 4 issued by the 3'd Respondent for handing over the possession of Plot No 47 B to the Petitioner forthwith Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MD. VIKHARUDDTN AHMED (PARTY IN PERSON) Counsel for the Respondent No. 'l: GP FOR MUN|CIPAL ADMIN|STRAT|ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI M. RAM MOHAN REDDY, SC Counsel forthe Respondent No. 6: M/S K. JAMALI The Court made the following: ORDER /-i-' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.

32668 of 2OL4 ORDER: Heard learned part5r-in-person, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No. 1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5, Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and Sri K. Jamali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6. 2. According to the petitioner, his grandfather i. e. , Sri. Abdul Kareem has been allotted the land by issuing patta proceedings as per the G. O. Ms. No. 1406 dated 25. 07. 1958 under assignment policy. House number waS a-1so allotted to him vide H. No. l-2-47 l. After the death of his graldfather, petitioner's father has succeeded the subject property. W. P. No. 32668 of 20t 3. It is further contended that respondent No. 6 has occupied the said property and started illegal construction over the , subject property. His father submitted a representation to respondent No.

4 to take action against respondent No. 6. Despite receiving and ackrowledging the said representation, respondent No. 4 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No. 4, petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. Whereas, Sri K. Jamali, learned counsel appearing for I respondent No. 6, on instructions, t would submit that respondent No. 6 has purchased the subject property in an auction conducted by respondent No. 4_Municipality ald he is in possession of the property. He made construction after obtaining permission from respondent No. 4. Therefore, petitioner cannot seek direction to respondent No. 4 to hand over the possession of the subject property from respondent No. 6. l 5. Vide letter proceeding No. D_3202/ 199g undated, respondent No. 3 requested respondent No. 4 to take steps to l l KL,J / W. P. No. 32668 of 2014 -) stop further construction of respondent No. 6 pending Iinalization of the case and report compliance by dated 22. 02. 1999.

Therefore, according to petitioner, respondent No. 4 has to hand over the subject property to the petitioner from respondent No. 6. 6. As discussed supra, both petitioner and respondent No. 6 are claiming right over the subject propeity. According I to the petitioner, it is his ancestral property. According to respondent No. 6, he has purchased the subject property from respondent No. 4 in an open auction. He has obtained building permission from respondent No. 4 and made 1 construction. Thus, respondent No. 4 has no power to hand over the possession of the subject property to the petitioner from respondent No. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the subject property belongs to him. Even then, respondent No. 6 occupied the same illegally and making constrrrction. Therefore, respondent No. 4 cannot decide the title dispute and cannot direct respondent No. 6 to vacate the subject property and hand over to the petitioner.

If the petitioner has any grievance, he has to approach competent I W. P. r.. 'o. 32668 of 20 civil Court. He cannot submit representation to respondent No. 4 and file the present writ petition alleging non consideration of the said request. 7. In the light of the said discussion, this writ petition is disposed granting liberty to the petitioner to approach competent Court for redressal of his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition sha1l stand closed. DEVI SD/. T. TIRUMALA ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION;FFICER To, '-' state principal secretary Municipal Administration secretariat , of 1. Th" Telanoana, Hvderabad. Adilabad z. Oistriti Cotiect'or, Adilabad district , . Adilabad district, Telanoana state' 5. 5;;:'c;lte1tor, Aiitaoaa. sirpur k"sil;;gar MJnicipalitv 4. Municipal corri.. i6iEi, ;;il-t Kagha2nagar. Adilabad district' "Sirpur -xagha2nagaar Mandal Adilabad District' s.

iifisiiAar, in Person ) R/o 2-B-131'0ld r7i'niir*'iiii:ntt;;p, tpg+i 6. one cc to MD. " . ",ii""i siiirr-r"shi);isli Aoitanju didtrict"Tetanana State' [oPUCl 7 T;;it t,; 6c i. ;;"c;r;nlr%, ijigh court for the state of relansnana' at Hvderabad[OUT] 8. ij;;-cdi;'M/i. k. Jamati, Advocate [oPUC]. . dlqan Development, High court e. rwo ccs to GpM M,l;. ;ip;'Aa;iriiitEiion of Telanqana, at HyoeraDao r] for the State luu 10. bil'ccdsti v. -Ci'i Mohan Reddv, SCIOPUCI '1 1. Two CD CoPies TJ LS d- <y HIGH COURT DATED:0411212024 -tHE R S 14 o \ i). /<( J o (f' I () (' O7 JAil 20? 5 z ORDER WP. No. 32668 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Gr'r"' $,- -.. - -a. w

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.