HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.15798 of 2010 DATED: 21.04.2014 Between:
Smt. S. Nagaveni ... Petitioner And A.P.Film Development Corporation Limited. Rep. by its Managing Director & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.15798 of 2010 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for respondents 3 and 4.
2. The petitioner and her husband took permission from respondents 3 and 4 in the year 1998 for establishing a small public telephone booth in the premises bearing D.No.8-2-293/PL/190, Road No.78, Film Nagar, Ambedkarnagar, Hyderabad and they have been running the same without hindrance whatsoever and they got electricity connection to the said telephone booth. The traffic police have also given no objection. They filed application for regularization on 30.04.2008 under G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue (Assn. Pot) Department, dated 16.02.2008. The petitioner came to know that the land behind their public telephone booth consisting of about Ac.65.00 was allotted to the first respondent and since the date of the said allotment, the first respondent was threatening the petitioner to remove the telephone booth. In those circumstances, they filed suit for permanent injunction in OS No.8410 of 2005 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the said suit was decreed on 30.09.2008, after renumbering the same as OS No.976 of 2007 by the Principal Rent Controller cum XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. It appears, challenging the judgment and decree, the first respondent filed an appeal and the same is pending. While so, when respondents 3 and 4 without issuing any notice, were trying to remove the said telephone booth, the petitioner filed WP No.23254 of 2008 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 24.10.2008 at the admission stage, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 18.10.2008 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. But so far no orders have been passed.
3. The first respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner has no right to question the action of respondents 3 and 4, as the petitioner kept the telephone booth in the land belonging the Corporation by encroaching the same and when the Corporation asked the petitioner to remove the telephone booth, she filed civil suit. Since the petitioner failed to remove the telephone booth from the Corporation land, the Corporation is entitled to take necessary action as per law.
4. From the papers filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Hyderabad, addressed a letter in March 2003 to the 3rd respondent stating that there is no objection from the traffic point of view and the petitioner also filed application for regularisation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166, Revenue Department, dated 16.02.2008 in application No.13454 on 30.04.2006 and the same is pending with the authorities. The petitioner submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent not to remove the telephone booth as it affects their livelihood. The petitioner also filed copy of the electricity bill. Thus it is clear that the petitioner has been running the telephone booth for the last 14 years.
5. In the circumstances, the respondents are directed not to remove the telephone booth without following due process of law.
6. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 21.04.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 5 WRIT PETITION No.15798 of 2010 Date: 21.04.2014 BSS