IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.23205 of 2014 BETWEEN Mahmooda Begum.
AND ... PETITIONER The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and three others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. VANAM VISHWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR. C. DAMODAR REDDY – R1 to R3 The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondents 1 to 3 in taking up demolition of part of premises bearing No.18-8-450/B/2, Kumarwadi Colony, Razanagar, Idibazar, Hyderabad.
2. Petitioner states that she has been a tenant of the said premises since 05.08.2008 under the landlady Smt. Zaibunnisa W/o. Syed Azam paying rent of Rs.4,500/- per month and rents up to date have been paid. The said property is said to have been donated by the landlady to her daughter, Syeda Asra Azam, respondent No.4 herein and that she is continuing as a tenant of the fourth respondent.
3. Petitioner states that under the road widening scheme of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) from Zohra Bee Dargah to DRDL (via Kumarwadi, Habeeb Nagar), the premises where the petitioner is residing is affected and that a notice of proposed road widening was given by GHMC to respondent No.4 on 17.03.2012 informing that an extent of 58.0 sq. yards of her property is likely to be affected under road widening and requested her to give consent in terms of the standard scheme of GHMC. Petitioner states that respondent No.4 gave a reply dated 08.04.2012 mentioning that the petitioner herein is a tenant of the premises and that petitioner and her husband are senior citizens.
4. It appears that the said reply of respondent No.4 has been considered and as per the instructions of the standing counsel for GHMC, the respondent No.4 has already given consent and received compensation amount payable for the land as well as the structures and in view of the finality of the said acquisition, the road widening work was taken up, which is complained of by the petitioner.
5. It is evident from the instructions of the standing counsel for GHMC that respondent No.4 has already consented and has received the compensation amount from GHMC and has, apparently, left the petitioner/tenant to fend for herself. However, the petitioner cannot have a better right than respondent No.4, landlady, herself and hence, in view of the consent given by her vesting the land and building to GHMC to the extent of the affected portion, petitioner’s tenancy with respect to the said house property cannot but be affected.
6. In this situation, therefore, learned standing counsel for GHMC was required to be get instructions as to how much requisite time they can grant to enable the petitioner to shift from the present premises to alternate premises and as the petitioner and her husband are senior citizens, appropriate consideration is necessary by GHMC.
7. Learned standing counsel, on instructions, submits that GHMC agrees to grant three weeks time to the petitioner to vacate the premises.
8. However, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to grant three months time to the petitioner is not reasonable so is the offer of GHMC granting three weeks time. In the circumstances, therefore, the GHMC is directed not to proceed with the premises, in question, under tenancy of the petitioner till 30.09.2014 so as to enable the petitioner to shift out to alternate premises.
Learned counsel for the petitioner shall file an undertaking of the petitioner before the Registrar (Judicial) within a week from today undertaking that the petitioner shall peacefully vacate and handover the possession of the said premises on or before the date stipulated above and that she would not create any third party interest till then.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 13, 2014 DSK