Abdul Mateen vs Zaheer Ahmed Zakirand 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6188 Tel

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                                    W.A.No.763 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. Abdul Najeeb Khan, learned counsel for the

appellant; Mr. Gudi Madhusudan Reddy, learned counsel for

respondent No.1/writ petitioner; Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy,

learned Government Pleader for Housing, Municipal

Administration and Urban Development Department representing

respondent No.2; Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned Standing

Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC)

representing respondents No.3 and 4; and Mr. M.Roopender,

learned Government Pleader for Home representing respondent

No.5.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.04.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.16556 of

2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.

3. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition seeking a

direction to respondents No.3 and 4 herein to allow him to ::2::

construct new house in place of the old house bearing No.17-2-468

situated at Kurmaguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad (briefly 'the subject

property' hereinafter) as per the approved plan and building

permission dated 09.03.2018.

4. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the

municipal authorities in collusion with respondent No.5 (appellant

herein) had not only demolished fourth and fifth floors of the

subject property, but are also interfering with the construction of

stilt+three floors made by respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) in

terms of the approved plan and building permission.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted before the

learned Single Judge that GHMC had granted permission to

respondent No.1 for construction of stilt+3 floors only, but

respondent No.1 proceeded to construct fourth and fifth floors in

violation of the approved plan and building permission

dated 09.03.2018; and therefore, the fourth and the fifth floors

were removed. Allegation of respondent No.1 that there was ::3::

interference by GHMC officials in the remaining part of the

construction was denied by the learned Standing Counsel.

6. Following the said submission, learned Single Judge disposed

of the writ petition by directing GHMC not to interfere with the

construction activity of respondent No.1 in respect of the

permission granted i.e., stilt+3 floors without following the due

process of law.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was

arrayed as respondent No.5 in the writ petition, but without issuing

notice to the appellant and without giving him an opportunity of

hearing, the aforesaid direction came to be issued. He has also

made certain submissions pertaining to the civil suit filed by

respondent No.1, non-extension of interim injunction initially

granted as well as the appeal filed thereafter by respondent No.1

where also no injunction was granted.

8. Be that as it may, we find that the direction of the learned

Single Judge was only to the GHMC not to interfere with the ::4::

construction activity of respondent No.1 in respect of the

permission granted without following the due process of law.

Therefore, no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the

appellant. However, we clarify that if there are any deviations and

violations in the construction carried out by respondent No.1 in

terms of the approved plan and building permission

dated 09.03.2018 on the subject premises, it would be open to

GHMC and its officials to take appropriate action, but strictly in

accordance with law.

9. With the above clarification, Writ Appeal is disposed of. No

costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed .

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 28.11.2022 LUR