Telangana High Court
Hamed Pasha vs The State Of Telangana on 4 January, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.55 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to
declare the action of the 2nd respondent in trying to dispossess the
petitioner from his property bearing plot Nos.10 and 11 admeasuring
563 sq. yards in survey No.34/1 and 34/2, situated at opposite: A1
Garden, Miralam Tank, Hyderabad, without issuing any notice and
without following due process of law, as being illegal, and arbitrary.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government
Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development
Department appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri V.Narasimha
Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.2, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the
Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
3. Petitioner contends that his father late Ameen Pasha had
purchased two different extents of land i.e., 430 sq. yards and 133 sq.
yards, in survey Nos.34/1 and 34/2 situated at Bom-Ruknud-Dowla
village, Rajendeernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for valid
consideration from one D.Pratap Reddy, under two separate registered
sale deeds dt.09.11.1992 and dt.26.05.1993; that the petitioner's father
also obtained regularization of the said plots during the year 2016
under Layout Regularization Scheme(LRS) introduced by the
Government; that the petitioner is carrying on business in the name
and style of M.S.Steels in the subject property; and that the 2nd
respondent-authority is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the
aforesaid property under the pretext of road widening, without following
due process of law.
4. Petitioner further contends that the officials of the 2nd
respondent-authority had made a visit to the petitioner's property on
30.12.2023 with their men and machine to physically dispossess the
petitioner from the subject property.
5. Per contra, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent while denying and disputing
the claim of petitioner of being dispossessed by the authorities for
undertaking are widening of the road, would however, contend that the
authorities would follow due process of law in the event of any
requirement to acquire the petitioner's land for the aforesaid purpose.
6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that before
undertaking any exercise of acquiring the land, the authorities are also
required to verify the claim being made by the persons, who are in
possession of the property to be acquired, and for the said purpose, the
authorities are also required to cause verification of the title of the said
persons, as to whether they are lawful owners or encroachers.
7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
8. While the respondents admit to the fact of the authorities
requiring to follow due process of law in the event the authorities intend
to take possession of the property belonging to a citizen, insofar as the
claim of the respondents that the authorities are required to verify the
title as to whether the person in possession of the property is a lawful
owner or an encroacher, it is settled position of law that even for
dispossessing an encroacher or trespasser, authorities are required to
follow due process of law.[see Lallu Yeshwant Singh v/s. Rao Jagdish
Singh & Ors. 1 and Meghamala v/s. G.Narasimha Reddy 2]
9. Further, the aforesaid view of the Hon'ble High Court has been
followed recently in a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this
Court(to which TVK,J is a member) in M/s. Visweswara Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd., and others vs. The Telangana State Industrial
Infrastructure Corporation & others 3.
10. Having regard to the settled position of law, since the
respondents-authorities have now indicated to this Court that the
authorities would follow due process of law, in the event of authorities
intending to acquire the land of the petitioner for the purpose of road
widening, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are
to be directed to follow due process of law, even if the petitioner is to be
AIR 1968 SC 620
(2010) 8 SCC 383
Judgment dt. 24.08.2023 in WA.No.697 of 2023
treated as an encroacher, before taking any action in respect of the
petitioner's property.
11. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition
is disposed of. No order as to costs.
12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the claims of the petitioner.
13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
_____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
04th January, 2024.
Note: Issue CC by 08.01.2024.
B/o(gra)
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Dt.04.01.2024
gra
