1. Maryada Swathi v. The Greater Hyderabad lvlunicipal Corporation

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 direct 'to the respondents not to demolish the building constructed in plot No. HIG-41 situated at Phase-9, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy district, belong to the petitioners, pending disposal of the above writ petition. |.A.NO:2 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 37454 OF 2014 Between: S.Sunil Kumar, S/o.Balappa, aged 40 years, Occ : Business, Fl/o.H.No.2-2- 10551 17 I A, Amberpet, Hyderabad. AND .....IMPLEAD PETITIONERYPROPOSED sth RESPONDENT 1 2 \,lqryaOa Swathi, D/o. Late firl.Prathap Reddy, aged about 34 years, Occ; Private Service, R/o. H. No. 3-4- 1 421 6l C, Barkatpuia, Hyderabad. Akula Prav_een, S/o. Girf.jashankar, aged about 35 years, Occ;Software Engineer, R/o.Plot No.501, Sri Sal Ram Manor, yousufguda, Fiyderabad, presently residing at New Jersy U.S.A. - -(being rep -bytris G.PA.- Mary_ada Swathi D/o. tate M.prathap Reddy3ged about 34 years, Oc.c Private Service, R!/o.H.No.3-4- 14216tC, Barkathpira, Hyderabad). .....RESPONDENTS Nos.1 & 2/PET|TIONERS Nos.1 & 2 3 4 5 The Greater Hyderabad [Vunicipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. The.Depuly. Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal, Corporation, Circle - 14, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. The. Asst. City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal, Corporation, Circle_ 14, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

6. The Government of Telangana, represented by its, Principal Secretary, Municipal Adminiskation, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Nos.3 to 6 / RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 4 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 pass orders impleading Mr. S.Sunil Kumar as Respondent No.S in W.P. No. 25370 of 2014 and W.P.M.P. No.31722 of 2014. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRt K.RAVI MAHENDER(SC FOR GHMC) Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : - Counsel for the lmplead Respondent No.5 : SRI N.RAVI PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER // / THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY 1/ WRIT PETITION No.2537O of 2OL4 ORDER: This writ petition is hled challenging the action of respondent No.2 in issuing notice vide proceedings No.31/UC/W.No.117 dated LO.O2.2OI4 under Section 452(21 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No. t has purchased land admeasuring 266.66 square yards bearing Municipal No.16-3 1-9, HIG.41, under registered sale deed dated 11.10.20I2 (for short 'subject property'). Subsequently, petitioner No.1 alienated 50% of the said property to petitioner No.2 under registered sale deed No.4782 l2Ol3 dated 29.06.2013 Thereafter, Petitioner Nos.l ald 2 h,ave individually applied seeking permission for construction of houses and the same \\,ere approved by the respondent vide permit Nos.27043lDClWZlCir 1412013, dated 12.O8.2O13 ard 27042 lDClWZlCir-14 l2OI3, dated 12.08.20 13, respectively. He further submits that to reduce the construction cost ald to have more built up area, the petitioners 1 2 and 2 decided to construct combined building ald accordingly, they have submitted application dated 10.10.2013 seeking permission for construction of combined building by enclosing rerrised pran. without considering the said application submitted by the petitioners, the respondents have issued impugned notice dated 10.02.2014 under section 452(2r of the HMC Act, 1g55. He wourd further submit that though in the impugned notice the respondents have referred to notice under Section aS2el of the HMC Act, no date or details were mentioned. In fact, the a_lleged notice under Section a52el of the Act was never issued and therefore, the impugned notice dated Lo'o2'2014 issued under Section a52el of the Act is invalid and contrary to the provisions of HMC Act, and is liable to set aside. 4 ' I-earned counser for the petitioners rvourd submit that the impugned notice dated ro.o2.2o14 was not prcceded by notice under Section a52Q) of the HMC Act. He would further submit t,.at without considering the application dated lO.lO.2O13 submitted by the petitioners seeking permission for construction of a combined building, and without affording an opportunity of hearing as mandated under Section a52(1)(b) of the HMC Act, the impugned notice is issued' He would also submit that hearing under Section 452 of the HMC Act is nor a mere empty formality, and the respondents ought to have considered the application submitted by /, t the petitioners ald afforded them an opportunit5r of hearing. He hnalll, 5sSpitted that the impugned notice dated 10.02.20 14 is in clear violation of provisions of the HMC Act, and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.

5. To buttress his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in T.Ramo Mohana Rao v. State of A.P.r wherein, the Division Bench of this Court at para-9 has observed as under; "9. Upon reoding of the aforesoid Section, ute think that if the actton is taken under Section 452 of tle Act, heaing is sine qua n-orr. Admittedly, the action u.tas intended to be taken under Section 452 of the HMC act, inuiting explanation. When the explanation is inuited, it must reach to its logical conclusion of acceptability or non-acceptability. Tle finding of the Hon'ble trial Ju-dqe could be a material to take a decision, yet in the scheme of the t hing a the lanu stands today hearing has to be giuen. Section 452 of the HMC Act has been designed bg the Legislature with on ideo for ad.Lrcing to pinciples of natural justice. We are, therefore, of tlrc uiew that the order of remoual passed bg the Municipol attthoity toithout considering the explanation of the appellant, is incottsistent with the aforesaid statutory prouisions, apart from in breach of the principles of natural justice. This order, of course, was challenged before us straight uaA as if is passed in sequel to the inpugned judgment and order passed by the Hon,bte trial Judge, uthich is appealed @gainst before us. We therefore, stay the operatton of the order of remoual of the lift." r 2or4 (5) ALD 90 4

6. t earned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos,I to 3 would submit that the petitioner Nos. I and 2 are owners to an extent of 133.33 sq.yards each, totaling to 266.66 square yards; that the petitioners have individualry applied for permission for independent building and the sarne were approved. However, contraq/ to the approved plan they have constructed one building consisting of stilt + 3 upper floors in clear violation of sanctioned plan. He further submits that as per bye laws a_r.rd building regulations, permission for construction of ground plus three upper floors can be granted only where the extent of land is 4OO square yards or more. In the present case, even if the individuar extents of the petitioners are combined, it comes to only 266 square yards, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to construct ground plus three upper floors. He further contend that the construction undertaken by the petitioners is in clear violation of the sanctioned plan, and as such, the respondents have rightly issued the notice under Sectio n 452(2) of the HMC Act and hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7. The principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners submitted an application dated

10. 10.2013 seeking permission for construction of a combined building by ezrclosing a revised plan. However, without considering or )/ ) disposing of the said application, the respondents issued the impugned notice under Section 452(21 of the HMC Act on

10.O2.2014. Furthermore, no notice under Section 452(ll of the Act u,as issued prior to the issuance of the impugned notice under Section 452(2), therefore, the impugrred notice is liable to be set

8. Admittedly, in the impugned notice dated 10.02.2O14, though there is relerence to a show cause notice No.31/UC/W.No.1 17/CIR- I I 14 lWZlGHMCl14, no date has been mentioned nor a copy of the said notice is placed on record by the respondent, thus, there is no material on record in proof of issuance of notice under Section a52(l) ol the HMC Act. In vieu. o[ Judgment of Division Bench o[ this Court in ?.Rcrma Mohana Rao (cited supro/ and aforesaid observations, this Colrrt is of the considered opinion that the impugned notlce dated I 0.02 .20 I 4 is contrary to the provisions and scheme of the HMC Act.

9. In view, of the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed of w'ith the following directior-r: The impugned notice dated 10.02.2014 issued under Section 452(21 of the Act shall be treated as a notice under Section 452(l) of the Act and the petitioners shall submit their explanation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such \ 6 ( submission of explanation, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with raw and provisions of the GHMC Act, by duly affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of four weeks thereafter, and take further action as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellancous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYil SD/-A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRARaTION OFFICER SEC Bund, Hyderabad. Kukatpally, Hyderabad. - 14, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

1. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank 2. The D. eputy Commissioner,. Greater Hyderabad Municipal, Corporation, Circle 3' The Asst- city Pranner, Greater Hyderabad Municipar, corporation, circre- .r4, 4. The Principar secretarv. Government of rerangana, Municipar Administration, 5. One CC to SRt A.PRABHAKARRAO. Advocate IOPUCI 6 one CC to SRt K.RAV| MAH^EN_DEn (SC ron-c'urrrr.fAovocate topucl 1 9n. CC to SRt N.RAVI pRASAo, noiocatelcjpu6l 8. Two CD Copies Secretariat, Hyderabad- o To SA BS I I -)o ( t 1hE S 1 6 HAil iij26 * BATC HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 ORDER WP.No.25370 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.