M RAJKUMAR Vs. EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. M. Rajkumar, writ petitioner No. 1 is a licensee for the Arrack Unit Twin Cities Hyderabad District for the excise year 1990-91. Petitioners 2 and 3 claim to be owners of the premises of the shop situate at Osman Shahi in Survey No. 9/ 2, Ward No. 202 Block No. C of an extent of 382.66 Sq. Yards.

(2.) The case of the 1st petitioner, in a nutshell, is as follows:-- He was the highest bidder and auction purchaser in respect of Arrack Unit Twin Cities Hyderabad District of 128 arrack shops for the excise year 1990-91. Having completed all the formalities, the excise authorities granted licences in respect of other shops, except in respect of Osman Shahi arrack shop on the ground of non-acceptability of the premises. Then the 1st petitioner filed W.P. No. 13977/90 on 24-9-1990 which was allowed by this Court on 5-10-1990 directing the authorities to issue licence is respect of Osman Shahi arrack shop in the existing premises. Aggrieved by the order dated 5-10-1990 in W.P. No. 13977/90 respondents 1 and 2 herein and the Commissioner of Excise have preferred Writ Appeal No. 1223/90 which was dismissed on 29-10-1990, and the authorities were obliged to issue licence for the sale of arrack and toddy in the same existing premises of Osman Shahi on 17-11-1990, The contention of the 1st petitioner is that he is carrying on business in the premises since 17-11-1990. There is a detailed narration of the facts indicating the owner-ship of the land in question, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which may not be material for the purpose of a decision in the writ appeal before us, suffice it to state that the premises in which the toddy shop is located in Osman Shahi is said to have been owned by one late Mali Muthamtna, wife of Laxmaiah and that late Mali Muthamma was the mother of late Jangaiah, who is the husband of the 2nd petitioner and the father of the 3rd petitioner herein. Petitioners 2 and 3, in fact filed O.P. No. 35 / 86 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the learned Subordinate Judge, by an order dated 18-1-1988, found that petitioners 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and grandson respectively of late Mali Muthamma and further found that petitioners 2 and 3 are the owners of the land comprised in Survey No. 17, corresponding to S.No.9/2, Ward No. 202 Block-C and they were held to be entitled to the compensation for the land acquired by the Government. More over, the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad District in his proceedings in Case No. B2/139/87, dated 7-3-1987, exercising the powers conferred under B.S.O. 34-D., directed the M.R.O., Musheerabad to restore the title of Mali Muthamma and carry out necessary changes in the town survey records.

(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that none of the respondents had called the writ petitioners to show cause why the structures put on the land, bearing Town Survey No. 9/ 2 Block 'C' Ward No. 22, shall not be demolished and the business be stopped from being carried on in the said premises. Petitioners 1 and 2 have filed W.P. No. 704/91 which was allowed to be withdrawn at the admission stage with a right to seek redressal afresh in respect of their rights. The said writ petition was withdrawn reserving the right to file a fresh writ petition inasmuch as full particulars were not given and the necessary parties were not impleaded. The prayer in the writ petition is that the respondents shall be directed not to interfere with the carrying on of the business by the first petitioner in respect of Osman Shahi arrack shop in any manner for the excise year 1990-91 or in the alternative to direct respondents 1 and 2 not to collect the proportionate rentals pending disposal of the writ petition.