M/S Shoe World And Co. And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5091 Tel

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                      AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


              WRIT APPEAL No.649 of 2022

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



      Heard Dr. J.Vijaya Laxmi, learned counsel for the

appellants; Mr. Srinivasa Srikanth, learned Assistant

Government     Pleader         appearing            for     respondent   No.1;

Mr. M.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondents No.2

and 3; and Mr. Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for

respondent No.5.

2. This writ appeal has been preferred against the order

dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge

disposing of W.P.No.17331 of 2020 filed by the appellants

as the writ petitioners.

3. Appellants filed the related writ petition questioning

the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the

premises bearing No.5-4-742/6 (5-4-742/6/A) at Station

Road, Abids, Hyderabad (briefly referred to hereinafter as,

'the subject property'), as illegal, arbitrary and

unreasonable.

4. Appellants are tenants of the subject property of

which respondent No.4 was the owner (landlord). Landlord

gifted the subject property by way of a registered gift deed

dated 25.07.2020 to respondent No.2 i.e., Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). GHMC has

accepted the gift deed and thus, has become the owner of

the subject property. The gift deed was made for the

purpose of road widening. However, with the grievance that

GHMC sought to demolish the subject property without

following the due process, the related writ petition came to

be filed.

5. Learned Single Judge considered the grievance of the

petitioner and thereafter passed the following order:

9. In this case, the undisputed facts are that the petitioner is a tenant. According to the petitioner, only with an intention to dispossess her, the landlord has gifted the property and the respondent corporation has accepted the gift deed. Further, without obtaining structural stability report and without following due process under the Act, the respondents are coming to dispossess the petitioner.

10. As far as ownership of the property is concerned, there is no dispute about the same and the unofficial respondent is owner of the property and a Gift Deed is executed to an extent of 288.76 square yards in favour of the municipal corporation and by all means, the respondent corporation is owner of the property. When once, the ownership lies with the corporation, the question of Rent Control Act and connivance of the landlord with the respondent corporation does not arise.

11. Even if the petitioner is in possession of the premises from the year 1981, however long standing possession she has, she is not the owner of the property and except seeking for a due process, the petitioner cannot have any legal right. Though in the earlier case, this court has directed about the structural stability report to be obtained where the learned standing counsel for municipality has not stressed upon the ownership of the property being passed on to the municipality. As such, in this case, particularly taking into consideration the said fact that the municipality is owner of the property now and that property is gifted for the purpose of road widening, as the petitioner is in possession of the property, by issuing a notice to the petitioner under Section 405(c) of the GHMC Act, 1955, the respondents can take further action in accordance with law.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. Thus, learned Single Judge directed that GHMC can

issue notice under Section 405(c) of the Greater Hyderabad

Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and thereafter take

further steps in accordance with law. We do not find any

error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single

Judge. However, we clarify that GHMC shall utilise the

subject land only for the purpose for which it was gifted by

respondent No.4 to GHMC and not for any other purpose.

7. Subject to the above, we do not find any good ground

to entertain the appeal.

8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 13.10.2022 vs