Telangana High Court
WP/28517/2009 of Syed Zaheer Ahmed Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 29 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28517 of 2009 Date: 29.12.2009 Between: Syed Zaheer Ahmed and others …Petitioners and The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28517 of
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.28517 of 2009
Date: 29.12.2009
Between:
Syed Zaheer Ahmed and others
…Petitioners
and
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal CorporationAnd others.…Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.28517 of 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner claims to be the owner of the premises bearingNo.8-3-167/B/4 of Jayantinagar, Sri Ram Nagar, Yousufguda,Hyderabad. The Commissioner and Special Officer, GreaterHyderabad Municipal Corporation – the 1[st] respondent issued noticedated 28.05.2009 under Section 481 of the Hyderabad MunicipalCorporation Act, 1955 (‘the Act’, for brevity) requiring the petitioner toproduce the sanctioned plan along with documents for verification. The petitioner submits that he has complied with the notice. Hereceived another notice dated 07.10.2009, but in respect of premisesbearing No.8-3-167/19/A/A, Sri Ram Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad,directing the petitioner to explain as to why the portion of the buildingwhich is constructed in violation of the stipulated provisions not bedemolished. The petitioner contends that under the guise of noticedated 07.10.2009 issued in respect of different premises, his actualpremises are sought to be demolished. The petitioner submits that theDeputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,Circle No.10 himself certified that no premises with No.8-3-167/19/A/Aexist. The petitioner seeks appropriate direction in this regard.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standingcounsel for the respondents.
There is an obvious discrepancy as regards the description ofthe properties mentioned in the notice dated 28.05.2009 on the onehand, and 07.10.2009 on the other hand. The provisions invoked arealso different. The petitioner has already submitted explanation inresponse to the notice dated 28.05.2009. Even now, the respondents are not able to explain the discrepancy. The ultimate action can ensueonly with the issuance of the notice under Section 636 of the Act.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondentsto consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and takefurther action only after a specific finding is given as to the identity ofthe property of the petitioner and issuance of notice under Section 636of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs.
December 29, 2009BVV
_________________________
JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY