l\iIrs Aruna v. 1. The Commissioner

Petition Under. Arlicle 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 order or direciion more particularly one in the nature of writ of IvIANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondents No 1 and 2 in not taking the action against the illegal constructions of 3rd respondent herein in and over the premises NO 6-3-832/C/1/1, NO 6-3-832/3, NO 6-3832//3/1, NO 6-3-A321312, and NO 6-3-83211 l1 situated at ameerpet, Hyderabad in spite of ,the representation of the petitioner dated Sth August,2014 as illegal, arbitrary and un constitutional and consequently direct the respondent No 1 and 2, their officials and staff to stop the illegal constructions of 3rd respondent in and over the premises NO 6-3- 832lcl1/1, NO 6-3-832i3, NO 6-3-832//3/1, NO 6-3832/3/2, and NO 6-3-832111. LA.NO:1 OF 2014 (WPMP.NO: 29618 0F 2014) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ( rcumstances stated in the atfidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High C;' urt may be pleased to direct the respondent No 1 and 2 and their officials and . taff to stop the illegal construction of 3rd respondent in and over the premises Nrr 3-3-g32/C/1/1, No.6-3- 832/3, No.6-3-832/3/1 , No.6-3-8321312, and No.6-3-832/1/t situated at ameerpet, Hyderabad pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. M.HARTHIKA, COUNSEL tEPRESENTING SRI G.THIRUPATHI REODY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI MTDDE ARUf KUMAR (SC FOR GHMC) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SYED TOUSIF BASHi\ W.P.NO: 11507 OF 2015 Between: Smt. Vijaya Devi Kothari,, W/o. Sampath Raj Jain, Agec Housewife, R/o 6-3-832 and 6-3-832/3, Ameerp6t, Hydera"ba j 65 years, Occupation - 500016. .....PETITIONER AND 1 . The State of Telangana Rep by its principal Secretary , Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represente, Commissioner Circle-1 0, Hyderabad. /unicipal by its Dy.

3. Rajkumar Goud, S/o Lingamaiah Goud, Aged maior, oc 6-3-83214, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 5000j6.

4. Smt. Aruna, W/o Rajkumar Goud, Aged major, occupatr 832/4, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500016. :upation Business R:/o )n housewife Fl/o 6-3- .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of ln I circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, ther pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly mrrr of Mandamus to declaring the inaction of the Responl considering the application dl-27.02.2015 for minor deviatic,r a praying that in the High Court may be ) in the nature of Writ )nt No. 2 herein in s as illegal, arbilrary, against the provisions of GHMC Act, circulars and settled principles of law and consequently direct the respondents No.2 herein to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. l.A.NO:1 OF 20{5 (WPMP.NO:15213 O F 2015) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession, enjoyment and constructron over the premises No's .6-3-832/3, 6-3-8321312, 6-3-832/3/1 . 63- 832t1/1, totally admeasuring 51 1 sq. yards., situated at Ameerpet, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI AKKAM ESHWAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI M.ARUN KUMAR (SC FOR GHMC) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Ms M.HARTHIKA The Court made the following COMMON ORDER . i I TI i1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ' IISHETTY 23644 of 2014 and 11 )7 of2OLS WRIT PETIT ION Nos. coMMON ORDER: W.P.No.23644 ol 2O14 is filed seeking follou'ing rc I r1-: "To rl.eclare the inaction of respondent I'l ' 7 artd 2 Ln not toking the action against the iltegat cons'r -,tchu/-Ls ,tf Lhe J'd ,.ipondent herein in and ouer the l) Pmt.?s "rt..a-s sslc) tt t, 6-s Bs2/s, 6's 832/s'/ I .6 s 832/ 3/ 2 6'3 g321 l/ l, ameerpet, Hgderabad..i'' ;p[te: c'tf 't'.i.' ,"p,-"t",,tntion dated 05 08 2014' as ilk c tl cLnd orbttrtLrg." W.P.No.1 1507 of 20 15 is fileci see king lollowit'rg lt1 r:f: "To cl'eclare the inaction of respondent lic . ' he'rein it considerlttg Lhe applicotion doted 2702'))15 for minor devicttions, as illegat and orbitrary ' "

2.Sincetheissueraisedinboththewritp.:itionsisinter connected, both the writ petitions are heard tc5:lher and are disposed of b1'way of this common order'

3. Heard Ms. Harthika, learned counsel Mr. G. Thirupathi Reddy, Ieaned counsel for t I W.P.No,23644 of 2014 and respondent Nos representlng r petitioner in 3 and 4 in W.P.No.115O7 of 2015, Sri Akkam Eshwar' leatt ed counsel for the petitioner in W P-No.11507 of 2015, Sri Syec learned counsel for respondent No 3 in W'P Nc ' Tousii Basha, 23644 of 2Ol4 and Sri M. Arun Kumar, learned Standing couns rl for GHMC in both the u'rit petitions. .".,". 2 4 W. P. No. 1 1 5O7 of 20 1 5 is taken up as lead case rn so far as as facts are concernecl

5. Brief facls of the case as averred ir.r the u,rit affidavit are tl-rat petitioner rs the absolute ou.ner and possessor of properties bearing municipat Nos.6-3_832/3, 6_3_832/ 3 /2, 6_3_832/ 3 / t, 6-3-8321 1/ 1, total admeasuring 51 1 square yards, situated at Ameerpet, Hyderabad, having acquircd the same through registered sale deeds bearir-ig document Nos.6 of 197g, 11I0 of 2OO2 daLed L8.O6.2OO2, 2357 ol 2OO2 dated 21.1t.2OO2 and 143O of 2OO2 dated 30.O7.2OO2, that thc name o[ rhe petitioner was muLated in the revenue records and he has been paying water bills, electricity bills, property tax, etc., that has obtained municipal permission for construction o[ stilL+4 upper floors for rgsidential use under municipal sanction plan urde permit No 17037lHo / c2 l c-ro l 2012 daLed. 20.r r.2or2 and complered construction as per the sanctioned plan.

6. It is further averred that respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are members of the same locality have filecl a writ petition urde W.P.No.23644 of 20l4; alleging that petitioner has made construction without obtaining permission. While the matter stood thus, at the instance of respondent Nos.3 and 4, respondent No.2 has issued impugned notice dated IO.02.2015 unde r Sections aS2 (i) and 46 1 (1) of rlic GHMC Act, 1955, '1, I ) statrng that there are deviations from approv(r' plan; t hat pctitioner has gLveu reply to the said show cause I rtice ' stating that the ove rall deviations of the building amor r ts t'o O i\7o/o u'hich is witl-rirl ti're Iimit of total Structure; and .i iLt petitioner strbmitred an applicaLion dated 27.O2 2015 for- r -:gularization and penaliztttton of minor deviations under Sect r n 455 fu\ of Lhc (ii{MC ALr uicLe application No.9439 127 lO'2 I 2 )15 ICZ' and thc same is pcnding ri'ith the respondent corporat c n Aggrit:ved b1, [hc same , l]rescnl writ petition is filed' Learnr:cl counsel ior the petitioner further : I lrmitted Lhat 7. there are ccrtain disputes between the 1.rr -itioner and respondenL N-os.3 and 4 and in fact criminal ( ' :es were also lilerl b1" the pctitioncr against respondent Nos 3 rr r I 4 Though' l-hc petilion(il constructed the buitding in accorr I nce with the sancttoned plan, respondent Nos 3 and 4 are trlirr i to influence resPondent No.2 to take action against the cot]str 'rction raised by the petitione r. Learncd counsel for respondent Nos 3 I nd 4 would 8. submit that respondent No.4 is the owner of hot:: : bearing No 6-3-832 l1/2, Amccrpct, Hyderabad, having ac<3r red thc'same through regislered sale deed bearing document N I 1418 of 1998 clated 21.O(). 1998. Petitioner is the owner ol I ouse beerring municipal Nos.6-3-832/3, 6-3-8321312, 6-3 t\'21311, 6-3- :] 4 832111\ building that petitioner has undertaken construction of rrerv by demotishing old house bearing No.6-3-832l3 rvithout obtaining any permission. Thercforc, respondent No.3 has submitted representation datcd OS.0g.2014 to respondent No.2 as uell as Commissioner, GHMC. ro takc actrorr against thc unauthorized construction of petitioner; that the respondent ollicials visited the subjcct propert5, and found that the construction made by the petitioner is illegal and stopped Lhe said construction for one day only and from the next day onwards, petitioner startccl constructing thc said building, but rcspondenl corporation is not taking any action. Aggrieved by thc same, respondent No.4 filed W.p.No.23644 of 2014.

9. further submitted Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 anc] 4, furthcr submitted that respondent corporation is not taking any action against the illegal construction made by the petitioner. IJe that writ petition Iiled by the petitioner is devoid of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and prayed to pass appropriate orders in W.p.No_236 44 of 2014. 10. Learned Standing counsel for responclent No.2 / GHMC, by referring to the counter would submit that petitioner has obtained permission for construction of stilt + four upper floors uide permiL No.17037lHo /c2 / cir_lo /2O12 dated 20.t 1.2012, and on inspection, respondent corporatior-r has found that I ! 5 certain setbacks have not been followed and :,ustruction has been made ri'ith deviations. Therefore, respolr: 'nt (rorp(,rJtion issued shorv c:rusc notice datcd 10.02.2015 tur r:r Section 452 (l)and 4t;1 (1) o1' the GIIMC Act, 1955, but nr rcpty has bcen issued by the pclitioner and as per records, nr rpplicalior-r has bcen lilcci lor rcgularrzation. I I . Pcrtrsal of material placed on record worr C d isclose thal petitioner had submitled an application d. t t7 27 .02-2O15 rrnder Scction 455 AA oI GHMC Act, for :i 3nl:rrization ol clcviations :ind lhc samc is pe nding [or c:o r idcr-ation u,ith respondent corporation. Further, a reply daLecl | 7.O4.2015 n,as submitl-ed br thc petitioner in response to lc shos, cause notrce da[ccl lO.O2.2Ol5, therefore, the statemer ts made in the .counter on behalf of GHMC is factuallv incorrect.

12. In thc- light of the above facts ancl cir(r tmstance, \r,n I petitions are clisposed of, with a direction :o respondent crorporation [o conside r the application da-, cl )7.02.2O1r submitted bv the petitioner for regularization ri deviations, by dul5, issuing notice to the petitioner and alr; affording an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate or( ers, strictly in accordancc u,ith the provisions of GHMC Act er cl Rules made there undcr and communicate the same to th I petitioner and take further action if necessary. Respondent \ r.2 as rvell as 6 I I I l Commissioner of GHMC shall complele the entire exercise u.ithin a pcriod of three (03) monLhs from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed /iTRUE COPY// Sd/.L.VIJAYA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,1(_,/ SECTION OFFICER To SA

1. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Near Tank

2. The Prin;ipal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, State of

3. The D?puty Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lrilunicipal Corporation, Circle- Bund, Hyderabad. Telangana at Hyderabad. 10, Hyderabad.

4. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

5. One CC to Ms. M.HARTHIKA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI M.ARUN KUMAR (SC FOR GHMC), Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SYED TOUSIF BASHA, Advocate (OPUC) 9. Two CD Copies .fk HIGH COURT DATED:3011012025 -[ tr\ N' *\\ ;- lt ,. il )t il r.,i . .il r Ii % t<o u- COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.23644 OF 2014 AND 11507 of 2015 l-r61 1i1 :* .\ 1--:._. - DISPOSING OF THE BOTH WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS. ,r**[ #*