Telangana High Court
WP/28524/2009 of Y.Bhaskar Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28524 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the owners of the premises bearing No.8-3-167/B/4 of Jayantinagar, Sri Ram Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.28524 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 petitioners claim to be the owners of the premisesbearing No.8-3-167/B/4 of Jayantinagar, Sri Ram Nagar,Yousufguda, Hyderabad. The Commissioner and Special Officer,Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the first respondentherein, issued notice dated, 28.05.2009, under Section 461 of theHyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (‘the Act’, for brevity)requiring the petitioners to produce the sanctioned plan along withdocuments for verification. The petitioners submit that they havecomplied with the notice. They received another notice dated07.10.2009, but in respect of premises bearing No.8-3-167/B/19/A/A, Sri Ram Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, directingthem to explain as to why the portion of the building, which isconstructed in violation of the stipulated provisions, shall not bedemolished. The petitioners contend that under the guise ofnotice, dated 07.10.2009, issued in respect of different premises,their actual premises are sought to be demolished. The petitionerssubmit that the Deputy Commissioner, Greater HyderabadMunicipal Corporation, Circle No.10 himself certified that nopremises with No.8-3-167/B/19/A/A exist. The petitioners seekappropriate direction in this regard.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learnedStanding Counsel for the respondents.
There is an obvious discrepancy as regards the descriptionof the properties mentioned in the notice dated 28.05.2009 on theone hand, and 07.10.2009 on the other. The provisions invoked are also different. The petitioners have already submittedexplanation in response to the notice, dated 28.05.2009. Evennow, the respondents are not able to explain the discrepancy. Theultimate action can ensue only with the issuance of the noticeunder Section 636 of the Act.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing therespondents to consider the explanation submitted by thepetitioners and take further action only after a specific finding isgiven as to the identity of the property of the petitioners andissuance of notice under Section 636 of the Act. There shall be noorder as to costs.
_____________________
L.NARASIMHA
REDDY,JDt:31.12.2009
kdl