THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.1912 of 2013
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant. None has appeared for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.01.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.21538 of 2010 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. The related writ petition was filed by the appellant assailing the action of respondents No.1 and 2 in not preventing respondents No.3 and 4 from making illegal construction contrary to the sanctioned plan in H.No.3-6-369/A/23, Street No.1, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. Appellant further sought for a direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to prevent respondent No.3 from making further construction and also to demolish that 2 portion which was found to be constructed against the sanctioned plan.
4. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 18.01.2012 held as follows:
"11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the instant case, there is an order passed by the Civil Court restraining the Municipal Corporation not to interfere with the structures of the third respondent. The learned counsel for the third and fourth respondents would submit that they have made constructions as per the sanctioned plan by the Municipal Corporation, though initially they constructed G + 2 but later on G + 3 floors. But, as no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents nor argument is placed before this court, this Court is not inclined to go into the allegations more particularly as the subject matter of the writ petition is pending in the civil court. Under these circumstances, giving liberty to the parties to move the court below for expeditious disposal."
5. Thus, learned Single Judge held that there was an order of the civil Court restraining Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) from interfering with the structures of respondent No.3. Therefore, learned Single 3 Judge declined to entertain the allegations made by the appellant.
6. On appeal, the following order came to be passed on 26.12.2013.
"After hearing the learned counsel for all the parties and after going through the statements and averments in the pleadings and the fact recorded by the learned Single Judge, we direct the Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation himself to look into the complaint made by the appellant(writ petitioner) alleging illegal construction and also the application made by the owner for regularization of the construction already been made under the provisions of Section 455-A of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). Both these things should be considered and decided simultaneously in accordance with law. Obviously, the Commissioner will decide personally while taking note of the provisions of Section 455-A of the Act. If the conditions mentioned in Section 455-A of the Act are fulfilled, obviously, he has to pass appropriate order. If the conditions are not fulfilled, obviously no regularization can be made and in the event, regulation is not made, then immediate orders would be passed, if necessary, for demolition of the building and demolition orders will be carried out within a fortnight from the date of taking such decision. Till a decision is taken by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, there shall not be any transfer, alienation, encumbrance or parting with the possession 4 of the building in question. Status-quo as on today shall be maintained. The Commissioner shall depute appropriate watch and ward officials to see that this order of the Court is carried out in all levels. If it is not carried out, then it will be open for the Corporation officials to take this to the notice of the police officials and the officer in-charge shall render all possible assistance and police help."
7. Thus, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to look into the grievance of the appellant regarding illegal construction by respondents No.3 and 4 and thereafter to take necessary steps in accordance with law. Status quo was directed to be maintained till such time a decision was taken by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.
8. At this distant point of time, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by taking a view contrary to what was taken by the co-ordinate Bench on 26.12.2013.
5
9. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ appeal in terms of the order dated 26.12.2013.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 27.09.2022 rev/vs