Mohammed Mohiuddin v. The Commissioner of GHMC, Hyderabad

Order

W.P. No.2860 of 2012 Questioning the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in interfering and harassing the petitioner in respect of property bearing No.8-15- 76/20, admeasuring 1100 square yards, situated at Mailardevpally Village of Rajendra nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of property bearing No.8-15-76/20, admeasuring 1100 square yards, situated at Mailardevpally Village of Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district having got the same through a registered sale deed dated 09.01.2007. It is submitted that the staff of the respondents 1 and 2 came to the premises on 27.01.2012 and asked the petitioner to come to the office. When the petitioner went to the GHMC office on 30.01.2012 he was

informed that there is an order of the High Court directing them to take appropriate decision on the representation of the respondent No.5 dated 11.04.2011 after giving opportunity to the respondent No.3. Though the petitioner herein was made party to the said writ petition, no notice was serviced. Seeking direction to the official respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the property in question wherein the petitioner constructed the building. At the instance of the respondents 3 to 5, the official respondents 1 and 2 are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property thereby threatening to demolish construction made by the petitioner, without following due process of law. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel placed a copy of the notice dated 03.02.2012, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Rajendranagar Circle – VI, under Section 452(1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) wherein the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the building constructed by him shall not be removed. He further submitted that without following the due process of law, the official respondents are threatening to demolish the construction made by the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the official respondent 1 and 2, Municipal Corporation, would submit that on the earlier occasion W.P. No.16378 of 2011 was filed by the 5th respondent herein wherein this Court on 15.11.2011, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the official respondents to take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner therein, dated 11.04.2011, after giving due opportunity to the respondent No.3 therein. Pursuant to the said order, the official respondents have issued notice dated

03.02.2012 under Section 452(1) of the Act. Without submitting any explanation to the said notice, the petitioner straightaway approached this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5 would submit that in connection with the petition schedule property, suit was filed and the same is pending before the Court below. Pending the suit, without there being any permission from the competent authority, the petitioner is went on proceeding with the construction. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to protect the construction being made by him illegally. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for the official respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5 and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he is the absolute owner and possessor of the premises in question, at the instance of respondents 3 to 5, the official respondents 1 and 2 are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. In response to which, the learned standing counsel appearing for the official respondents 1 and 2 submitted that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.16378 of 2011 on 15.11.2011, the respondents 1 and 2 have issued the notice dated

03.02.2012, wherein the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation. Without submitting any explanation, the petitioner approached this Court. Further, the counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5 submitted that the petitioner has no right over the land in question wherein he made illegal construction and the suit is pending in respect of the property in question. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for by him. From a perusal of the notice dated 03.02.2012 issued by the respondents 1 and 2, it is clear that the petitioner was asked to submit show cause as to why the building or such portion of the building or work or such portion of the work mentioned in the notice, as is found contrary to the sanctioned plan should not be removed/altered or amended/pulled down so as to bring it in conformity with the sanctioned plan and to submit explanation in this regard. Without submitting any explanation the said notice, the petitioner approached this Court. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition as under. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, with a liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate representation, in response to the notice dated 03.02.2012, to the respondents 1 and 2, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within a period of four weeks thereafter, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after due notice to the petitioner as well as to the respondents 3 to 5. Till such time, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed not to interfere with the premises in question, including the construction stated to have been made by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is also directed not to make any further construction, except the construction sought to be made in accordance with the sanctioned plan issued by the competent authority. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 19.04.2012 LSK