Telangana High Court
WP/34604/2011 of Smt.Hima Bindu, Vs The Commissioner, on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.34604 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent in issuing proceedings bearing B.A.No.292/2010/G1, dated 29.11.2011, under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, as
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANUWRIT PETITION NO.34604 OF 2011
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.
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of therespondent in issuing proceedings bearing B.A.No.292/2010/G1,dated 29.11.2011, under Section 636 of the Greater HyderabadMunicipal Corporation Act, 1955, as illegal and arbitrary andconsequently direct the respondent not to demolish the existingconstructions made by the petitioner in Ward No.19 in SurveyNo.139/1, A.I.R. Veedhi, Bipass Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petitionmay be stated as follows:
The petitioner is the absolute owner of the aforementionedproperty. She made an application on 27.12.2010 to the respondentCorporation seeking permission to construct two floors of the buildingfor residential purpose. The respondent Corporation grantedpermission vide proceedings dated 22.03.2011 and pursuant to thesaid permission, the petitioner constructed the residential building.While the matter stood thus, the impugned proceedings were issuedby the respondent Corporation stating that the building construction iscontrary to the sanctioned plan and that the second, third, fourth andfifth floors in part were constructed without obtaining permission, andaccordingly called for explanation of the petitioner within a period ofthree days, failing which, the said constructions will be removed by theCorporation. After receiving the impugned order, even though thepetitioner submitted her explanation on 07.12.2011, the respondentCorporation is trying to remove the structures. Hence, the Writ Petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitionerconstructed the building after obtaining permission from therespondent Corporation and that the deviations pointed out in the impugned order are incorrect and hence, he prays to issue a directionto the respondent Corporation not to demolish the existingconstructions made by the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondentCorporation contended that there are certain deviations in making theconstructions and that appropriate decision would be taken inpursuance of the impugned notice and hence, he prays to dismiss thewrit petition.
5. The allegation is that the petitioner has constructed the second,third, fourth and fifth floors in part contrary to the sanctioned plan andhence, the impugned notice was issued.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing therespondent Corporation to pass appropriate orders on the impugnednotice duly considering the explanation of the petitioner within a periodof three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till adecision is taken and an order is passed, the constructions made bythe petitioner in Ward No.19 in Survey No.139/1, A.I.R. Veedhi, BipassRoad, Tirupati, Chittoor District shall not be demolished. There shallbe no order as to costs.
29[th] December, 2011.AMD
_______________
K.C.BHANU, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
AMD
WRIT PETITION NO.34604 OF 2011
Date:29.12.2011