Telangana High Court
WP/33741/2010 of B. Kamalamma Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.33741 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and with the consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALIW.P.No.33741 OF 2010
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:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. RadhaKrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and withthe consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is disposed of at thestage of admission.
The petitioner claiming to be the owner and possessor of housebearing door Nos.18-5-15 to 32 situated at Lal Darwaza, Hyderabadhas filed this writ petition apprehending threat of demolition of the saidpremises by the respondent-Corporation.
The petitioner pleads and asserts that she is the owner of thepremises bearing door Nos.18-5-15 to 32, Lal Darwaza, Hyderabad byvirtue of registered sale deed dated 28.06.1971 executed by oneMohiuddin and another. It appears, the said premises has beenassessed to tax, which the petitioner says that she has been paying. Itappears that the respondent served notice on her in Lr.No. 35/ACP/C4/GHMC/2010 dated 24.11.2010 under section 636 of theGreater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘theAct’) directing to pull down or remove unauthorised construction ofground floor in premises No.18-5-35. The petitioner states that shehas nothing to do with the said premises bearing No. 18-5-35, but inthe guise of service of notice dated 24.11.2010, the respondent isproceeding to demolish the premises bearing door Nos.18-5-15 to 32. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court to declare theaction threatening to demolish the said premises of which she is theowner as illegal.
A perusal of the notice issued by the respondent dated24.11.2010 would show that action has been initiated under Section452 of the Act with reference to the premises bearing door No. 18-5-35,but not the premises bearing door Nos.18-5-15 to 32. If that be so, the respondent cannot legitimately proceed in respect of the premisesNos. 18-5-15 to 32. There is also no indication from the said noticethat there are any unauthorised constructions in the said premises. Itmust be therefore, be held that the respondent cannot either demolishor remove the premises bearing door Nos.18-5-15 to 32. If there areany illegal constructions in the premises No.18-5-35, the respondent isat liberty to proceed against the same in accordance with law.
The writ petition is allowed subject to the above observation.
NOUSHAD ALI,J
Dt. 31.12.2010Note:cc in two daysb.o.lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
W.P.No.33741 OF 2010
Dt. 31.12.2010