N. Narahari, Hyd vs Prl. Secy., Mun. Admn, Hyd 3 Ot
2022 Latest Caselaw 4943 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4943 Tel
Judgement Date : 27 September, 2022

Telangana High Court

N. Narahari, Hyd vs Prl. Secy., Mun. Admn, Hyd 3 Ot on 27 September, 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


               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

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

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

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.