SRl. B v. vs S. MURTHY

The Greater Hvderabarl Munrcipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissionel having its office at Tank Bund, BdJ";r-ofi, H*;;;;5; The Greater Hvderabarr rr,,r.nic'pli-cJrE;t'ril'd; by its Assistant city ll"lqu.r, 9ircte No.8, Abids, Hyddrabai]'"' -''-"" ""' smt. M.Vimala. D/o. Late M Narahari, aged about 36 years, Occ Housewife. R/o.H.No.4-1 -56/1, Hanuma nrekd i ir;;p"B;;;[viIrjo"o. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No..l and 2 in not considering representation dated 16,2,013 made through praja Vani of 1st Respondent and representation dated '17 '12'2013 to 2^d Respondent, by removing the iregar encroachments and projections of balconies over the road al H.No.4_1_56/ 1, Hanurnantekdi, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad, made by Respondent No.3, as arbitra ry, illegal, discriminative, in yi9!a!io1 of principtes of naturat justice, viotative of the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Articles 14 and the Constitutionat Right guaranteed, and contrary to the provision of HMC Act, 1955 and the rules made therein l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: oF 20141 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir ;qmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor r may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the :presentation dated 16.12.2013 and 17.12.2013 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B. V. V. S. MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. l&2: SRI MIDDE ARUN ( JMAR (sc FoR GHr\r ;) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -- The Court rnade the following: ORDER r) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALTSHEf,TY WRIT PETITION No.3861a of 2OL4 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefl "To declare the action of the respondent Nos.l and 2, in not considering the representation doted 17.12.2013 b Y respondent, by removing the illegal encroachments and projections of balconies over the road at H.No.4-1-56/1, Hanumantekdi, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad, made by respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary."

2. Heard Sri B.V.V.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Arun Kumar, leamed Standing counsel for respondent Nos.l and 2. No lepresentation on behalf ol respondent No.3.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioncr rvould submit that petitioner is the absolute owner of H.No.4-l-57, Hanumantekdi, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad (for short "the subject property") having acquired the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.l450l of2025 dated

22.07.2O05; that petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Respondent No.3, who is the owner of H.No.4-1-56l1, at Hanumantekdi, Hyderabad, which is adjacent to petitioner's house has made construction without obtaining any perrnission and without leaving setbacks and also projected her balcony over the public road and also hade construction by encroaching the road. The petitioner submitted representations dated 16.12.2013 to respondent No.l and -r/ 2 17 .12.2013 to respondent No.2, to demolish the itl :gal consrruction raised by respondent No.3. Despite receiving and r knowledging the said representations, respondent Nos.l and 2 did not a ,t upon the same. Aggrieved by tle same, petitioner herein filed the prer;r rt writ petition.

4. Lcarned Standing counsel for respondent Il s.l and 2 filed counter affidavit stating that on receipt of the cor rplaint frorn the petitioner. the officials of respondent corporation I i re inspected the aforesaid property of respondent. No.3 and found thz t respondent No.3 unauthorized strucfures consists of two upper flor s with asbestos sheets, without leaving any setbacks, without obtainin ; any permission from the respondent corporation.'Therefore, responde r corporation has issued notice under Section 452 (l) and46l (l) of the r iHMC Act. 1955 on 17.01.2014; that the respondent No.3, did not giv: reply to the said notice. Hence, respondent corporation has issued anc her notice datcd

19.02.2014 under Secrion 452 e) of the GHMC lr ,. 1955. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 has approached the Ci:. Civil Court by way of filing suitvide O.S.No.272 of 2014, on rhe hle of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, hou t ;er, respondcnt corporation could not proceed firther in view of pen< :ncy of suit and thereafter, respondent corporation has issued firr I notice dated

23.I2.20I4 under Section 636 of the HMC Acr. I955 I i 1 i i I i I i I 3

5. Leamed counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the suit vide O.SNo.272 of 2014 filed by respondent No.3 was dismissed by the trial Court vile judgment dated 3I.12.2018. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.3 preferred appeal vide A.S.No.63 of 2020 and the same was dismissed on 20.03.2024, and respondent No.3 preferred second appal vide S .A.No.4 I 6 of 2024 before this Court, however, there are no interim orders in the second appeal. He further submitted that respondent corporation could not proceed further pursuant to hnal notice dated 23.12.2014 under Section 636 of the GHMC Act, 1955. Therefore, prays this Court to allow this writ petition.

6. Leamed Standing counsel for respondent Nos.[ and 2 finally submitted that respondent corporation has already initiated proceedings against respondent No.3 and would take further action in accordance with the provisions of GHMC Act and seeks reasonable time.

7. Perusal of the record would disclose that respondent No.3 has undertaken construction without obtaining any permission and without leaving any setbacks. The respondent corporation has issued notices under Sections 452 (l), 461 (1) and 452 (2) of the GI{MC Act, I 955 and also issued final notice under Section 636 of the GHMC Act, against the illegal and unauthorized structures raised by respondent No.3. However, it is contended that respondent corporation could not take further steps in view of pendency of suit vde O.S.No.272 of 2014. I 4 Since, the suit was dismissed and there are no inter n orders in the second appeal preferred by respondent No.3, there is rrr impediment for respondent corporation to take further steps pursua I to final notice dated2f .12.2014. issuedunder Section 636 of the GHlv rl Act, 1955.

8. In view of the above facts and circumstance of t Ie case, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondt:r I corporation to proceed further pursuant to final notice dated 23.12.2) 4 under Section 636 of the GHMC Act, 1955, strictly in accordance v,i h the provisions of the GHMC Act. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall sta rd dismissed .-SD/- S. iIALLIKARJUNA RAO fAf;r ;514*t REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// \\sEcTroN oFFtcER To, office at Tank Bund, Basheerbag, Hyderabad.

1. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad MrJnicipal Corp rration, having its 2 The^Assistant City Planner, GreaterHyderabad Munic I rl Corporation, Circle 3. One CC to SRl. B. V. V. S. MURTHY, Advocate [OpL( ] 4 One CC to SRt. TM|DDE ARUN KUMAR (SC FORGHT/ )) topucl 5. Two CD Copies No-8, Abids, Hyderabad. ' BM TKS A, I' HIGH COURT DATED:0811012025 ORDER WP.No.38618 of 2014 {cE STA ,^ 1 1 itB 2026 1l ,.*SPAT \ . Jt o c) ,< DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ p{ I\N