WP/33354/2010 of Afroz Nabi Khan Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, on 30 December 2010

ORDER:

The petitioner who claims to be the owner and possessor of plotbearing H No. 16-11-16/L/9/A, Teegalaguda, Malakpet, Hyderabad, has filedthis writ petition, seeking compensation in respect of part of the land which was allegedly taken by the respondents and further alleging that respondentsare taking steps to demolish the constructions made on the said plot, asillegal.

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor or landadmeasuring 592 sq.yards in plot bearing H No. 16-11-16/L/9/A,Teegalaguda, Malakpet, Hyderabad by virtue of an agreement of sale dated10.11.1994. During the year 1999, on account of change in the master plan,the respondents encroached a part of the said land and demolished thebasement structures without notice or intimation and without paying anycompensation.

On the remaining part of the land, he has constructed a house with compoundwall and the same has been assessed to property tax. The respondents haveissued a show cause notice dated 30.11.2010 under Section 452 of theHyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, calling upon the petitioner toremove the illegal and unauthorized erection of AC sheets shed, which hasbeen constructed without any permission. The petitioner states that he hassubmitted his explanations on 6.12.2010 and 21.12.2010 thereto. In the saidexplanations, while reiterating the earlier alleged taking over of the land, thepetitioner explained that he has erected the house with compound wall tosafeguard the land and also explained that he has approached the authoritiesfor regularization. So far authorities have not passed any final orders on theexplanations filed by the petitioner. Apprehending demolition of theconstruction even without passing final orders, in order to protect theconstructions till the decision is taken, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr R Radha Krishna Reddy,learned Standing Counsel for respondent-GHMC.

Learned Standing Counsel for respondents on instructions submittedthat the representations filed by the petitioner are pending consideration andso far, no decision has been taken.

Having regard to the same, until the concerned authority considers theexplanations submitted by the petitioner on 6.12.2010 and 21.12.2010 and afinal decision is taken thereon, it is appropriate that the illegal constructionspointed out in the notice dated 30.11.2010 should not be demolished.

In view of the above, it is directed that the concerned authority shalltake appropriate decision on the explanations submitted on 6.12.2010 and21.12.2010 by the petitioner in response to the notice dated 30.11.2010 anduntil a final decision is taken thereon, the constructions pointed out in the saidnotice shall not be demolished. At this stage, learned counsel for petitionerseeks permission to keep open the issue, relating to compensation so as toenable him to agitate his rights before the appropriate forum. Hence, it is leftopen for the petitioner to agitate his claim for compensation before theappropriate forum.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

DATE: 30.12.2010TVK

_____________

NOUSHAD ALI,J

Note : Issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs.B/oTvk

DT.30.12.2010

Note: Operative portion by wire.