Ateequddin Ali Khan vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4842 Tel

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                                   W.A.No. 619 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Ms. K.Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant; Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

for     Greater        Hyderabad          Municipal          Corporation   (GHMC),

Hyderabad for respondent Nos.1 to 4; and Mr. Mohammed

Habeebuddin, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the order

dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of

W.P.No.33065 of 2022 filed by respondent No.5 as the writ

petitioner.

3. In the writ petition, appellant was arrayed as respondent

No.5.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the grievance

that without issuing notice to the appellant (respondent No. 5),

learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by granting ::2::

liberty to respondents No.1 to 4 to take steps in accordance with

law.

5. Respondent No.5 had filed the writ petition seeking the

following relief:

.... to issue a writ, order or orders more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly respondent No.1 to 4 herein in not demolishing the illegal and unauthorized ongoing construction of Ground + One Upper Floor raised by the unofficial respondents herein i.e., respondent No.5 for commercial use in deviation of the sanctioned plan as approved by the GHMC vide Permit No.46871/GHMC/5187/2022, dated 07.03.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent herein for residential building permission for the premises bearing Municipal H.No.21-4-766/A, situated at Koka Bazar, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad in spite of issued Notices under Sections 452(1), 461(1) and 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 is as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional besides gross violation of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955; consequently, direct the official respondents i.e., respondent No.1 to 4 herein to remove/demolish the illegal and ::3::

unauthorized construction of Ground + One Upper Floors raised by the unofficial respondents herein i.e., respondent No.5 in the aforesaid premises in the interest of justice...

6. Respondent No.5 complained before the learned Single

Judge that respondents No.1 to 4 were not taking any action against

the illegal and unauthorized construction carried out by the

appellant for commercial use in deviation of the sanctioned plan.

7. Learned Single Judge noted that respondents No.1 to 4 had

issued notice under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (briefly 'the Act'

hereinafter) on 11-07-2022 to which appellant had submitted

explanation on 12-07-2022 denying all the allegations of illegal and

unauthorized construction by him and requesting withdrawal of the

notices.

8. Learned Single Judge further noted that respondent Nos.1

to 4 were not satisfied with the explanation of the appellant.

Accordingly, they had issued notice on 20-07-2022 under Section

636 of the Act. Thereafter, learned Single Judge observed that ::4::

respondents No.1 to 4 should take further steps following the

notice issued under Section 636 of the Act but, in accordance with

law, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of the said order.

9. On thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, we

are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge does not

warrant any interference from the appellate court. All that learned

Single Judge observed is that respondents No.1 to 4 having issued

the statutory notices are required to proceed further but, in

accordance with law. No exception can be taken to such

observation of the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid order cannot

be construed to be adverse to the appellant. Therefore, learned

Single Judge was justified in disposing of the writ petition at the

admission stage.

10. Considering the above, we decline to interfere with the order

of the learned Single Judge at the appellate stage. The writ appeal

is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

::5::

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

dismissed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 22.09.2022 LUR/BB