WA/1799/2008 of Anand Kumar Kimtee, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, on 26 December 2008

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMAANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

WRIT APPEAL No.1799 of 2008

ORAL JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Sri JusticeD.S.R.Varma)

With the consent of learned counsel appearing forboth the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal,at the interlocutory stage, in view of the limited questioninvolved in this writ appeal.

2. The writ appeal is directed against the interimorder, dated 28.08.2008, passed by a learned singleJudge of this Court in disposing of W.P.M.P.No.14120 of2008 in W.P.No.10823 of 2008, which was filed seeking adirection to the respondents not to demolish the building inpremises bearing No.8-2-656/K/6, totally admeasuring474.8 square yards, situate at Road No.12, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad, without following the procedure under law,pending disposal of the said writ petition.

3. Appellants are the writ petitioners andrespondents are the respondents in the said writ petition.4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, theparties will be referred to as arrayed in the said writpetition.

5. The whole question that is involved in this writappeal is as to whether all the directions that were givenby the learned single Judge while disposing of the saidW.P.M.P., pending disposal of the said writ petition, becomplied with by the writ petitioners or not.

6. The directions given by the learned single Judge in the impugned order reads as under:

“In that view of the matter, the petitioners arepermitted to carry out internal works in the firstand second floors alone. They shall not attend toany work in the third floor or on the terrace eightpillars raised on the south east corner up to 10feet for fixing and maintenance of the lift as wellas for the stair case. Similarly, the petitionershall not carry out any constructions on the northwest corner four pillars raised up to the height of11 feet for the construction of the water tank.”

7. Now, it is the grievance of the writ petitioners thatthough the learned single Judge permitted them to carryout the internal works in the first and second floors,however, windows are not fixed to the third floor, in whichthe writ petitioners were forbidden to carry out the works,as such, the same would cause damage to the building. Therefore, they seek permission of this Court to modifythe impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. They further represent that the area, where the four pillarsare constructed for erection of the lift, was also to becovered temporarily, otherwise, the lift, even if erected, cannot be put to use. Therefore, in order to avert suchkind of damage in future, they require permission of thisCourt, again, to make some arrangements to cover thesaid four pillars.

8. Accordingly, having regard to the facts andcircumstances, we feel it appropriate to permit the writpetitioners to fix glass panels to the windows in the thirdfloor in order to prevent the seepage of water or any otherdamage that is likely to be caused to the third floor. Except this, for any other purpose, the third floor shall notbe put to use.

9. It is further clarified that there shall not be anyencumbrance created in favour of third parties by the writpetitioners insofar as the third floor is concerned and thethird floor shall not be put to use in any other manner thandirected by the learned single Judge in the impugnedorder, pending disposal of the said writ petition.

10. Further, the writ petitioners are permitted to coverthe four pillars which are meant for erection of the lift, byputting any temporary shelter on it, to protect the samefrom any damage in future.

11. The above two facilities that are provided by thisCourt are subject to the outcome of the final hearing of thesaid writ petition.

12. With the above observations and directions, the writ appeal is disposed of. However, there shall be noorder as to costs.

______________________

JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

________________________JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

26[th] December 2008dr