Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
Tummala Srinivas - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 12-29-99
Civil Procedure Code , 1908 – Order 39 – Rule 2 - Constitution of India - Article 227 – Article 226 - Specific Relief act, 1963 - Section 34 - Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Section 42 - Corporation Act - Sections 452, 461 and 636 – Transferred property - It is allegation of petitioners that landladies transferred their property to fourth respondent, but lease was not attorned - After all this it is alleged, 4th respondent came with 500 strong labour force and demolished compound wall dividing petitioners premises and property belonging to fourth respondent - A complaint was lodged with 2nd respondent duly producing court orders granting injunction/status quo - Petitioners also issued telegrams to chief Minister, Home Minister etc and also filed applications for appointment of a Commissioner - when petitioners were in civil Court in connection with their applications they received message on telephone that 4th respondent started pulling down shops/mulgies by engaging 600 workmen - Petitioners rushed to spot and entire structure to an extent of 15 facing main road was demolished - When petitioners saw, there was a contingent of police personnel present and in spite of petitioners producing copies of orders of civil Court, police and respondents 3 and 4 did not take any action - On that day, according to petitioners, respondents 5 and 6 came to site and advised police personnel not to give any assistance to petitioners - Then they approached brother of first petitioner who is a lawyer practicing in this Court - His efforts to convince authorities about Court orders proved futile - These are allegations made by petitioners in affidavit – Held , Another aspect of matter is that when lis involves adducing copious evidence, public law remedy of declaration, even though available in appropriate cases like cases which are exclusively within jurisdiction of a court of judicial review, ordinarily, is not available for consequential relief would only become a matter of course which may be granted or may not be granted by a Civil court - Any such declaration by highest court of record would amount to depriving Civil Court of its jurisdiction - In public law, declaratory jurisdiction of Court of judicial review has no limitations, except those which court itself recognises as falling in realm of impropriety - English Law recognized certain cases which fall outside declaratory jurisdiction - These areas are foreign elements, parliamentary proceedings royal prerogative extra legal issues, and theoretical issues including advisory opinions - Cases where there is no dispute in existence, where dispute is based on hypothetical facts, where dispute ceased to be of practical significance, where declaration can be of no practical consequence, are treated as forming part of class of cases under heading theoretical issues - If consequential relief claimed is inseparable part of main declaration, even such class of cases are excluded from declaratory jurisdiction - Other class of cases outside declaratory jurisdiction of Court are cases where Court having supervisory jurisdiction ordinarily does not exercise declaratory jurisdiction which is best left to Court of original jurisdiction. In this case, though High Court has original jurisdiction, being a Court of supervisory jurisdiction and also being Court exercising superintendence over subordinate Courts, exercise of declaratory jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is not called for and in my considered opinion not permissible - Writ petition accordingly dismissed
( 1 ) THE five petitioners in this writ petition pray for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in high handedly and illegally demolishing the premises in their occupation bearing No. 6-3-1192/6 near Begumpet Fly Over, Begumpet, hyderabad, as illegal and void and for a consequential direction to pay compensation for their illegal acts. Initially they approached the Civil Courts of the X junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad against the landlord of the premises and also obtained ad interim injunction restraining the landlord from dispossessing the petitioners from the premises in possession of each of the petitioners. However, they filed this writ petition, this time against the Municipal corporation, the Station House Officer, punjagutta Police Station and two Cabinet ministers of State of Andhra Pradesh. The writ petition is also against two private persons who are none other than the father of one landlady and the husband of another landlady who between them own the five commercial shops which were allegedly leased out to the petitioners.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the 3rd respondent herein granted lease to the petitioners in respect of the shops belonging to his wife and daughter. The petitioners are carrying on various types of individual business like STD, Xerox, Stationery and inter-net services etc. , The 4th respondent herein appears to have obtained development rights for the property known as Raja Jitendera Prasad Devdi behind the premises of the petitioners. He started constructing a multi-storied complex. When the landladies (Lessors) threatened to dispossess the petitioners, they approached the Civil Court and filed suits for permanent injunction. The Civil Court also granted ad interim injunction on 15-10-1999. Such injunction was granted by the Civil court in I. A. No. 1155 of 1999 in O. S. No. 4858 of 1999 filed by the first petitioner, in I. A. NO. 1156 of 1999 in O. S. No. 4857 of 1999 filed by the third petitioner, LA. No. 1154 of 1999 in O. S. No. 4859 of 1999 in the suit filed by the fourth petitioner. Similarly, the Court of the XIX Junior Civil judge issued similar injunction order in la. No. 1368 of 1999 in O. S. No. 4861 of 1999 filed by the 2nd petitioner and the same court also granted similar injunction in another I. A. No. 1167 of 1999 in O. S. No. 4860 of 1999 filed by the 2nd petitioner. O. S. No. 4861 of 1999 is in respect of the shop bearing Municipal No. 6-3-1192/5 and o. S. No. 4860 of 1999 is in respect of the shop bearing No. 6-3-1192/6. The fifth petitioner also obtained an order of status quo as on 12-11-1999 in I. A. No. 1310 of 1999 in O. S. No. 5308 of 1999 from the Court of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad.
( 3 ) IT is the allegation of the petitioners that the landladies transferred their property to the fourth respondent, but the lease was not attorned. After all this on 10-12-1999 at 5. 30 p. m. , it is alleged, the 4th respondent came with 500 strong labour force and demolished the compound wall dividing the petitioners premises and the property belonging to the fourth respondent. A complaint was lodged with the 2nd respondent duly producing the court orders granting injunction/status quo. The petitioners also issued telegrams to the chief Minister, Home Minister etc. , and also filed applications under Order 39, Rule 2-A of Code of Civil Procedure (C. P. C.) for appointment of a Commissioner. On 11-12-1999 when the petitioners were in civil Court in connection with their applications under Order 39, Rule 2-A of c. P. C. , they received the message on telephone that the 4th respondent started pulling down the shops/mulgies by engaging 600 workmen. The petitioners rushed to the spot and the entire structure to an extent of 15 facing the main road was demolished. When the petitioners saw, there was a contingent of police personnel present and in spite of the petitioners producing the copies of the orders
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
