AHMED BIN ABOOD Vs. COMMISSIONER MAHABUBNAGAR MUNCIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Govardhan Reddy, Counsel for the writ petitioners and Sri Polisettyi Radhakrishna, Standing Counsel for the respondent/Municipality.

(2.) The only question which had been argued in elaboration by the Counsel for the writ petitioners is that the respondent/ Municipality cannot proceed with the proposed auction of the houses in question especially in view of the fact that G.O. Ms. No.419, Municipal Administration, dated 13- 8-1996 would cover the vacant lands or the sites and would not cover the buildings. The learned Counsel also in the alternative had drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 4 of the Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Properties Rules 1967 and would contend that even in view of the said Rule, the proposed auction cannot be further proceeded with.

(3.) On the contrary, Sri Polisetti Radhakrishna, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Municipality would contend that inasmuch as the proceedings were taken in pursuance of the resolution, the Municipality is having the power to make such alienations.