WP/28882/2009 of P. Suresh Babu Vs The Greater Hyderabad Muncipal Corporation on 31 December 2009

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 SpecialOfficer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the firstrespondent herein, issued notice dated, 28.05.2009, underSection 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955(‘the Act’, for brevity) requiring the petitioners to produce thesanctioned plan along with documents for verification. Thepetitioners submit that they have complied with the notice. They received another notice, dated 07.10.2009, but in respectof premises bearing No.8-3-167/B/19/A/A,Sri Ram Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, directing them toexplain 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 differentpremises, their actual premises are sought to be demolished. The petitioners submit that the Deputy Commissioner, GreaterHyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No.10 himself certifiedthat no premises with No.8-3-167/B/19/A/A exist. Thepetitioners seek appropriate direction in this regard.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learnedStanding Counsel for the respondents.

There is an obvious discrepancy as regards the description of the properties mentioned in the notice, dated28.05.2009 on the one hand, and 07.10.2009 on the other. Theprovisions invoked are also different. The petitioners havealready 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 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 beno order as to costs.

_____________________

L.NARASIMHA

REDDY,JDt:31.12.2009

kdl