HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23989 of 2007 DATED 25th November, 2014.
BETWEEN Smt. K.Hymavathi ….Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Quthbullapur Circle, rep. by Deputy Commissioner, Quthbullapur Mandal, RR District and ors.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23989 OF 2007
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
The petitioner states that she is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No. 416, H.No.12-83 (old) and H.No.7-214/9 (New), admeasuring 500 square yards comprised in Sy.No.49 of Padmanagar colony, Chintal, Quthbullapur village, Ranga Reddy District by virtue of her purchase under a registered sale deed dated 19.03.1975. The second respondent issued proceedings dated 12.11.2002 changing the house number from 7-214/9 to 8- 212/A and the locality where the house is situated i.e. Padmanagar instead of Ambedkar nagar. She has been in possession of the said property for the last 32 years. After obtaining permission from the then Quthbullapur Grampanchayat on 30.12.1983, she constructed compound wall. When the third respondent tried to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, she had instituted a suit in O.S.No.27 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District and the said suit was decreed in her favour by judgment and decree dated 30.06.2006. The fourth respondent claiming to be the GPA holder of the third respondent carried the matter in appeal in A.S.No.205 of 2006 before the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District and the said appeal was allowed reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.27 of 2000. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal No. 413 of 2007 before this Court and the same was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner preferred SLP.No.14397 of 2007 before the Supreme Court, which also ultimately ended in dismissal. While so, the Deputy Commissioner, Quthullapur circle of GHMC issued proceedings dated 28.07.2007 deleting the existing name of the petitioner recorded in the municipal records and entering the name of the third respondent in the municipal records in respect of the subject house property bearing No. 8-212/A.
The only point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that before issuing the impugned proceedings, no prior notice was issued to the petitioner.
The said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not disputed either by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 or the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
In the absence of issuance of prior notice to the petitioner, the first respondent ought not to have passed orders effecting the change of names in the records and affecting the rights of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the proceedings No.A1/1487/GHMC/2007-08, dated 28.07.2007 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Quthubullapur circle of GHMC are set aside and the matter is remanded to the said authority to consider the case of the petitioner afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner and respondent No. 3 and pass appropriate orders thereon after hearing both sides and perusing the records, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 25th November, 2014. Msnrx