P. Madhavi v. 1. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings of the Judgment dated 301712024 passed in MA.No.28 of 2024 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above CMSA. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 extend the interm order d1.2210812024 vide l.A.No.1 oI 2024 in CMSA.No.7 of 2024. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: Md. Javid, S/o. Amanullah, Aoed about 45 v No.54/4/55, VST Colony, Nacharam, Uppal, ears, Occ- Business, Plot Medchal-lValkaigiri District ...petitioner / Respondent No 3 AND P. Lakshrna Reddy, Aged about 40 Vears, Occ_ Home -iledc"hat_ No. 54/4/55, VST ru"cnirarn,' Up"riaf -Coto-ny, 1 P. Madhavi, W/o. Maker, Rl/o. Plot N/alkajgiri District ...Respondent No 1 / Appellant 2. Greater Hyderabad Munic-ipar corporation, Represented by its commissioner, C.C Comptex, Tankbund Road, Adarsh frldgaiiHyOerabad' '- -- ' '"- 3' The Deputy commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipar corporation, circre - ---- No.1, Kapra, Medchal Malkajgiri Distri6f ...Respondents / Respondent Nos 1 & 2 Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to permit the 3rd respondent that is me to contest the case as party in GMSA No. 7 of 2024 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Between: [t{d _Jgyid, S/o. Amanullah.,.Aged about 45 years, Occ_ Business, plot No.54ltu55, VST Cotony, Nadharam, uppii, nrericnii vJ[JidilibiJirtt AND 1. P .Madhavi, W/o. p. Lakshma Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ_ Home Maker, Rr/o. pror No.S4lA"rSs, vsi-coio"nvl rurcr,rrihl ub"riai-treaciar- Malkajgiri District ...petitioner / Respondent No 3 g,q"l", H yd e ra b a d rvt u n i c i pa I co rpo ratio n, d::::,tJ"T I I: J#::,:',:I C.C Comptex, Tankbund noaO, nOarjn Njg"i,"H]rdu;rlrd The Deputy commissioner. Greater Hyderabad Municipar corporation, circre No.1, Kapra. Medchat Malkajgiri Oistri6i- ---- "*"'" n 3 ...Respondents / Respondents 1 & 2 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 vacate the interim order dated 21-09-2024 passed in lA NO. 1 of 2024 in CMSA No. 7 of 2024 in lhe interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent No 1 & 2 : : Sri Rapolu Bhaskar Sri Srinivas Rao Pachwa Standing Counsel Counsel forthe Respondent No 3 : Sri Syed Hameed The Court delivered the following Judgment : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN C.M.S.A. No.7 of 2024 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Srinivas Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. I and 2 and Sri Syed Hameed, Iearned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

2. The appellant has obtained building permit order for construction of ground + two floors over and above the said ground + two upper floors. She has made construction on two upper floors in violation of the said building permit order and sanctioned plan. Therefore, on the complaint lodged by respondent No.3, neighbor of the appellant, respondent No.2 I has issued show cause notice dated 22.01.2024 for u'hich the appellant has submitted her explanation on 25.01.2024. On considering of the same and also unauthorized construction, respondent No.2 has passed speaking order dated O5.O2.2O24 directing the appellant to remove the unauthorized construction within seven days. Instead of _-t 2 removing the said unauthorized construction, the appellant has preferred an appeal vide M.A.No.2S of 2024 und'er Section 654 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ithe Act") and the same has been dismissed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad vide judgment dated 30.07.2024- Challenging the said judgment, the appellant filed the present appeal.

3. As discussed supra, there is no dispute with regard to the unauthorized construction made by the appellant i.e', two upper floors in deviation to the building permit order obtained by her. It is the case of the appellant that the speaking order dated O5.O2.2O24 is in violation of the procedure laid down under the Act and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, she preferred an appeal in I M.A.No.28 of 2024. It is also apt to note that the appellant having admitted that she has made unauthorized construction, did not even file an application under Sections 455A and 455AA of the Act seeking regularization of the said unauthorized construction. ,/ J

4. In the judgment dated 30.07.2024 rn M.A.No.2B of 2024, the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, has framed the following issues: "1. Whether the appellant ahs made out the grounds for setting aside the speaking order dated 05.O2.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, if so, whether the order under appeal is liable to be set aside?

2. To what relieP"

5. On consideration of the entire facts, vide the impugned judgment datecl 30.07.2024, the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, has dismissed the appea_l. Perusal of speaking order dated O5.O2.2O24 would reveal that on receipt of compliant from respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has issued a show cause notice dated 22.OL.2O24 and petitioner has submitted explanation on 25.01 .2024. On consideration of the same, respondent No.2 has passed I speaking order dated O5.O2.2O24. Therefore, petitioner can,t contend that speaking order is in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of the procedure laid down under the Act. In fact, in'the explanation dated 25.01.2024, the petitioner has admitted that she has constructed two (2) \addit$nal floors unauthorizedly, over and above the I 4 permitted floors. On consideration of the said aspect only, learned Chief Judge, City Smatl Cause Court, dismissed the M.A.No.28 of 2024. Thus, both the orders are reasoned orders and well founded. The appellant failed to make out any case to interfere with the said orders. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed'

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant seeks liberty of this Court to submit an application under Sections 455A and 455AA of the Act before respondent No'l seeking regularization of the unauthorized construction' Therefore, liberty, as sought for, is granted to the appellant'

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No'3, on instructions, would submit that the appellalt is proceeding with the construction in deviation with the building permit order. In the light of the said submission, respondent No'2 is

8. directed to inspect the site and if the allegation made by respondent No.3 is found to be correct, he shall take action / / !F. 5 against the appt:llant, including stopping the construction and seizing of thc bttilding. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed Sd/. A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// nlI\'FSEcTIoN OFFICER \ To,

1. The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Srinivas Rao Pachwa, Standing Counsel tOPl.JCl 4. One CC to Sri Syed Hameed, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies c- <v J HIGH COURT DATED:2910'112025 JUDGMENT CMSA.No.7 of 2024 / c o I I lAs!H1 -t 14 FtB 206 "=a A I isr. y6,rr DISMISSING THE CMSA c.r'9 W,