Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig Nizami, learned counsel for the v. Satyam Reddy, Iearned Standing

petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the order No. uct16t2o,t5 dated 07.'10.2015, issued by the 2.nd Respondent herein, as illegal arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice. I.A. No 10F20 5(WPMP. NO : 43354 OF 2015 petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 herein not to demolish house bearing Municipal No.6.23.1052(old)correspondingtonewNo.6-23.852/1(New),admeasuring 1 O0 Sq. yards, situated at Goutham Nagar, New Police Colony, Nizamabad, pending disposal - of the main Writ Petition' l.A. NO: 2 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 43355 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of order No. UC1612015, dated Ol.1O.2O1S issued by the 2nd Respondent herein, pending disposal of the above writ petition. counsel for the Petitioner: sRt MtRzA NtsAR AHMED BAIG NtzAMt counse! for the Respondent No.1: Gp FoR McpL ADMN-URBAN DEV counsel for the Respondent No.2: sRl v.sATyAM REDDY, sc FoR McpL The Court made the following: ORDER a HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.33627 of 2015 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "To decla.re the order No.UC/ 16/2015 dated 07.10.2015 issued by the 2"d respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and consequentlg, to set aside the same."

2. Heard Sri Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig Nizami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri V. Satyam Reddy, Iearned Standing counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing Municipal No.6-23-1052 (old) corresponding to new No.6-23-852/l (new) admeasuring 1O0 square yards, situated at Goutham Nagar, New Police Colony, Nizamabad. He applied for Municipal sanction for construction of ground + first floor and the same was approved uide proceedings bearing No.Gl / 168 I 2009 dated 18.08.2009 and petitioner constructed the said building as per the plan and the same has been assessed by the 2"d respondent. While the matter stood thus, at the instigation of Mr. Waheed Khan, respondent No.2 has issued notice dated 08.09.2015 under Section 452 (1) and 461 (1) of HMC Act, 1955 alleging that the said construction has been made in deviation of the approved plan. The petitioner has \-I \ F!r*i1 \r 2 submitted reply dated 01.10.201s to the show cause notice dated o8.o9.2015, however, without considering the said reply, respondent No.2 issued impugned notice clated oz.lo.2ols under Section 452 (21 of the t{MC Act, 1955. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has undertaken construction as per the approved plan and there are no deviations from the approved plan and only at the instance of his neighbour i.e., Mr. waheed Khan, respondent No.2 issued impugned notice without specifying deviations or unauthorized construction made by the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the submissions made by the petitioner are factually incorrect and the impugned notice dated or.to.2ols and show cause notice dated 08.09.2015 were issued on coming to know of the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner and therefore, contention of the petitioner that notices have been issued at the instance of neighbour is incorrect.

6. It is relevant to refer to the Judgment of the erstwhile High Court Andhra Pradesh in T.Ro,ma Mohana Rao a. 3 State of A,P.r wherein it was held that consideration of reply under Section 452(2l,of HMC Act, is not an empty formality and further held as follows: "9. Upon reading of the aforesaid Section, we think that if tle action is taken under Section a52 of tlrc Act, hearing is sine qua non. Admittedly, tlrc action was intended to be taken under Section a52 of the HMC act, inuiting explanation. Wlrcn ttre explanation is inuited, it must reach to its logical conclusion of acceptability or non- acceptability. The finding of the Hon'ble trial Judge could be a material to take a decision, yet in tLrc scheme of the thing and the law stands today hearing has to be giuen. Section 452 of the HMC Act has been designed bg the Legislature uith an . idea for adhering to principles of ruatural justice. We are, therefore, of the uiew that the order of remoual passed bg the Municipal authority without considering the explanation of tlrc appellant, is inconsistent utith the aforesoid statutorg prouisions, apart from in breach of the pinciples of natural justice. This order, of course, u)as challenged before us straight way as if is passed in sequel to the impugned judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble trial Judge, which is appealed. against before us. We therefore, stay tle operation of the order of remoual of the lift." T. In the present case, material placed on record specilically discloses that the reply dated O1.1O.2O15, submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the respondents before issuing notice under Section 452(2) of HMC Act, therefore, the impugned notice dated 07.10.2015 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. ' zoLq (5) ALD 90 I 4 \l't

8. In view of above reasons, the writ petition is allowed arrd the impugned notice dated 07.10.2015, is set aside and respondents are directed to consider the reply dated

01.10.2015, submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate Oiders strictly in accordance with the provisions of GHMC Act, 1955, u'ithin a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if ?ry, shall stand closed That Rure Nisi has made Absorute as above witness The Honrbre sRr APARESH r(uMAi-srNgH; ih;ehi;f:ustice onlhis Tuesday, the sixteenth Day of september, Two rrrousano i*intv'F-i*.- "no To, //TRUE COPY// GOWRI SHANKAR REGISTRAR ON OFFICER 1 on an ngana. The Principal Secretary, (Municipal Administrati Secretarial, Saifabad, fjyb;;;b;[, StIt" of reta rban Development) 2' The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 3. one cc to sRI MTRZA NtsAR AHMED BA|G NtzAMl, Advocate [opucl 4. one cc to sRr v.sATyAM REDDY, sc FoR MCPL topucl 5. TureGGs.tD"Gp FoR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV, High court for the State of 6. Two CD Copies qN Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI BSR PMK HIGH COURT DATED:16/09/2025 I t t ORDER WP.No.33627 of 2015 ';riE S74 Irs ( I .- :) :-) 20ttt6 I, * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS l> 't) 6