Telangana High Court
Karim Nawaz Alladdin vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... on 25 November, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.A.No. 632 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. D.V.Sita Rama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior
Counsel for respondent No.7/writ petitioner.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.09.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.35322
of 2022 filed by respondent No.7 as the writ petitioner.
3. Respondent No.7 had filed the related writ petition assailing
the alleged inaction of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
(GHMC) in allowing illegal construction by the appellant, who was
arrayed as respondent No.6 in the writ petition.
4. The alleged illegal construction was being carried out in
premises No.8-2-584, Road No.9, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. It was
alleged that no building permission was obtained and without such
::2::
permission, construction was being made by respondent No.6
(appellant herein).
5. Learned Single Judge at the admission stage itself, after hearing
learned counsel for the writ petitioner (respondent No.7 herein) and
learned Standing Counsel for GHMC took the view that if
construction is being made without any permission, GHMC ought to
have issued notice to respondent No.6 (appellant herein) and should
have taken action in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ
petition was disposed of by directing the GHMC to issue notice to
respondent No.6 (appellant herein) and to take appropriate action on
the said illegal construction in accordance with law.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits hat no
notice was issued to the appellant though he is prejudicially affected
by the impugned order; without hearing the appellant, learned Single
Judge directed the GHMC to issue notice to the appellant and to
take action by terming the construction made by the appellant as
'illegal construction'. That apart, he submits that there was no
candid disclosure of material facts by respondent No.7 inasmuch as
::3::
though he had made an oblique reference to the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 23.04.2021 passed in W.P.Nos.19276 of 2020
and 6498 of 2021, he failed to mention about the outcome of
further proceedings in writ appeal as well as before the Supreme
Court; on non-disclosure of material facts, the writ petition should
have been dismissed.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior
Counsel for respondent No.7 (writ petitioner) submits that there was
no suppression of material facts by respondent No.7 inasmuch as the
order of the writ court dated 23.04.2021 passed in W.P.Nos.19276
of 2020 and 6498 of 2021 was affirmed in W.A.No.254 of 2021 and
challenge thereto in S.L.P.(C).No. 10495 of 2022 was rejected by the
Supreme Court vide the order dated 13.06.2022. He further submits
that pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 12.09.2022, GHMC had issued demolition notice to the
appellant on 21.10.2022 against which, appellant has filed
W.P.No.39541 of 2022 wherein an interim stay has been granted by
the learned Single Judge on 26.10.2022.
::4::
8. Be that as it may, we are of the view that before disposing of
the writ petition, learned Single Judge ought to have issued notice to
the appellant, who was arrayed as respondent No.6 in the writ
petition. Without issuing notice to the appellant and without hearing
him, learned Single Judge had termed the construction made by the
appellant as 'illegal construction', which we feel is not proper.
Further direction of the learned Single Judge to the GHMC to issue
notice to the appellant for taking appropriate legal action is also not
justified.
9. We have already held in more than one proceeding that before
terming a construction as 'illegal construction' and directing its
demolition, it is necessary for the writ court to issue notice and to
hear the affected party. Without following the said procedure, such
direction would be untenable in law.
10. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter
and the rival contentions as to non-disclosure of all material facts in
a candid manner, we are of the view that for the reasons indicated
::5::
above, order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.09.2022 passed in
W.P.No.35322 of 2022 is required to be set aside.
11. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 12.09.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.35322 of 2022.
12. It is clarified that status quo order passed by this Court
on 27.09.2022 would stand merged with this order.
13. Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
closed.
__________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
_______________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 25.11.2022
LUR
