Telangana High Court
WP/28859/2009 of Mohammed Munawar Vs The Greater Hyderabad Muncipal Corporation on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28859 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner 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.28859 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 premisesbearing No.8-3-167/B/4 of Jayantinagar, Sri Ram Nagar,Yousufguda, Hyderabad. The Commissioner and SpecialOfficer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the firstrespondent herein, issued notice, dated 28.05.2009, underSection 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955(for short ‘the Act’), requiring the petitioner to produce thesanctioned plan along with documents for verification. Thepetitioner submits that he has complied with the notice. Hereceived another notice dated 07.10.2009, but in respect ofpremises bearing No.8-3-167/B/19/A/A, SriRam Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, directing him to explainas to why the portion of the building, which is constructed inviolation of the stipulated provisions, shall not be demolished. The petitioner contends that under the guise of notice, dated07.10.2009, issued in respect of different premises, his actualpremises are sought to be demolished. The petitioner submitsthat the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad MunicipalCorporation, Circle No.10 himself certified that no premiseswith No.8-3-167/B/19/A/A exist. The petitioner seeksappropriate direction in this regard.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedStanding Counsel for the respondents.
There is an obvious discrepancy as regards thedescription of the properties mentioned in the notice, dated 28.05.2009, on the one hand, and 07.10.2009 on the other. Theprovisions invoked are also different. The petitioner hasalready submitted explanation in response to the notice, dated28.05.2009. Even now, the respondents are not able to explainthe discrepancy. The ultimate action can ensue only with theissuance of the notice under Section 636 of the Act.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing therespondents to consider the explanation submitted by thepetitioner and take further action only after a specific finding isgiven as to the identity of the property of the petitioner andissuance of notice under Section 636 of the Act. There shall beno order as to costs.
_____________________
L.NARASIMHA
REDDY,JDt:31.12.2009
kdl