HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.28516 of 2010 DATE: 24.06.2014 Between:
Mrs. Mehdi Begum … Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad & another … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.28516 of 2010 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. One M. Rama Reddy S/o Laxma Reddy, who was the Managing Director of M/s HI-LINE Builders Pvt. Limited, was the owner of an extent of 110 sq. yards and he transferred the same in favour of one Mr. Naser Hussain by registered GPA dated 18.03.1991 and a shed was constructed and it was assigned house bearing D.No.8-2-644/1, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The said Naser Hussain sold the same to the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 12.12.1991. From the date of purchase of the property, the neighbour on the northern side Mr. K.Amarender Reddy, was creating trouble and he filed WP No.15783 of 2007 seeking a direction to the authorities to take action for demolition of the unauthorised constructions made by the petitioner herein. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 05.11.2009 directing the 1st respondent to examine and dispose of the application submitted by the 3rd respondent therein/the writ petitioner herein for regularisation of the construction made by her and the petitioner was given liberty to submit his representation/objection for regularisation. It appears that as on the date of the said order, the petitioner submitted an application for regularisation on 24.03.2008. Ultimately, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the following grounds:
“1. The property is affected to a breadth of 15’-0”
throughout the frontage in Road as per the G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 15-11-2002 to consider the property as commercial and the applicant will be left with no more property to consider under BPS.
2. The frontage length of the shops is in excess of 35-6” to the property of Hi-line complex and they have not submitted proper ownership and link documents to that extent.
3. The Hon’ble High Court has also passed orders on 5.11.09. As per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court the BPS application has been carefully examined and there is no merit to consider your BPS Application.”
Consequently, a notice under Section 452 of the HMC Act, 1955, was issued. Challenging the said order dated 25.10.2010, the present writ petition was filed.
3. A reading of the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 discloses that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the property of the petitioner is going to be affected to an extent of 15 ft. throughout the frontage in road and the applicant will be left with no more property and the petitioner has not submitted the ownership and link documents.
4. So far as the averment of link documents are concerned, the application for regularisation dated 24.03.2008 discloses that in the list of documents enclosed along with the application, a copy of the ownership of the document of title deed was enclosed. An amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited at that time and subsequently, further amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid on 30.03.2013. So far as the ground indicated in the order is concerned, if the property of the petitioner is going to be affected as per G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 15.11.2002, the petitioner would take that risk and it is not one of the grounds for rejecting the application for regularization. No other ground, which is relevant for the purpose of rejection of the application, is mentioned in the impugned order.
5. Hence, in the circumstances, the order dated 25.10.2010 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 24.03.2008 in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the objector, if any, and pass appropriate reasoned orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 24.06.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 3 WRIT PETITION No.28516 of 2010 Date: 24.06.2014 BSS