Sri. I Srinivasa Rao vs The Greater Hyderabad Muncipal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3859 Tel

   THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                                    AND

  THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                    I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2022
                           in/and
                 WRIT APPEAL No.468 of 2022

COMMON JUDGMENT:             (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


     Heard Mr. C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant.


     2.      This intra-court appeal has been filed against an

interlocutory order dated 27.04.2020 passed by the learned

Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5785 of 2020 filed by the

appellant himself. The order reads as under:


             "Notice before admission.
             Learned counsel for the petitioner shall implead the
     District Collector as a party-respondent.

It is a case where, except filing of an ex-parte decree said to have been obtained by the petitioner against GHMC, there is no material placed before this Court even to prima facie come to a conclusion that the petitioner has a right and title over the property.

On the other hand, Sri Sampath Prabhakar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC categorically submits that the GHMC authorities have no clue of the petitioner's land.

                                    2                         HCJ & SNJ
                                                     W.A.No.468 of 2022

In a number of instances, status quo orders have been utilized by the respective parties for taking Kazba (encroachment) of open lands.

This Court has entertained a doubt that while it is the claim of the petitioner that he has acquired the land of Ac.3-00 guntas in 2005, and as it is impermissible for someone to have a land of more than 1000 square meters in Hyderabad City, the same would be hit by the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act.

In those circumstances, acceding to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he would implead the District Collector as a party respondent, the matter is adjourned to 02.07.2020."

3. We further find that there is delay of 762 days in

filing the appeal.

4. Be that as it may, we are of the view that no

effective order has been passed by the learned Single Judge,

interim or otherwise. Only an observation has been made

that there is a doubt in the mind of the Court as to the claim

of the appellant regarding acquiring of land in the city. This

is a prima facie observation of the learned Single Judge. We

fail to understand as to how appellant can be aggrieved by

such prima facie observation when the writ petition itself is 3 HCJ & SNJ W.A.No.468 of 2022

pending before the learned Single Judge. It is open for the

appellant to contest the writ petition filed by himself. Being a

prima-facie observation, it will not come in the way of final

adjudication of the writ petition. No case for interference is

made out.

5. In view of above, we decline to condone the delay

of 762 days in filing the appeal.

6. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2022 is dismissed.

Consequently, the related interlocutory application in I.A.No.2

of 2022 and the Writ Appeal are also dismissed. Needless to

say appellant would be at liberty to request learned Single

Judge to expedite the hearing of the pending writ petition.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

7. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, in the Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

_________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_________________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 25.07.2022 KL