HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.19855 of 2010 Date: June 16, 2014 Between:
Ramesh Bhai R. Desai … Petitioner And
1. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad & 2 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.19855 of 2010 O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of plots bearing Nos.719/part, 720, 721/part and 688/part, total admeasuring 300 square yards situated in Survey Nos.299/1, 300/1 and 301/1 and plots bearing Nos.718, 689, 719/p, total admeasuring 250 square yards in Survey Nos.299/1, 300/1 in Block 7, Vinayak Nagar, Kuthbullapur Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds dated 23.12.2008. The said plots were regularized under Land Regularization Scheme as per the orders issued by the first respondent dated 30.07.2009. The petitioner seems to have obtained two separate building permissions on 28.08.2009. The petitioner admits that he made deviations in construction other than the approved plan by raising one additional floor, cellar, but the entire building was assessed to property tax. A notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued to the petitioner on 31.03.2010 to which he submitted an explanation on 06.04.2010. Without considering the said explanation, respondents 1 and 2 issued a notice under Section 636 of the Act on 14.06.2010. It is also his case that in respect of the encroachment made by the neighbouring plot owner he filed W.P.No.7923 of 2010 and at his instance the notices are being issued. He ultimately challenges the action of the respondents in not receiving the application submitted by him seeking regularization of the deviations and as a consequence of which he sought setting aside the notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 14.06.2010.
3. No counter-affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2 and a vacate stay petition is filed by the 3rd respondent.
4. Even as per the affidavit filed by the petitioner he made constructions contrary to the approved plan. The permits were obtained only on 28.08.2009 beyond the cut off date and the petitioner is not entitled to submit an application for regularization of unauthorized constructions under G.O.Ms.No.901 dated 31.12.2007. Hence, that portion of the relief cannot be granted. However, the grievance of the petitioner so far as issuance of notice under Section 636 of the Act is concerned, a perusal of the same would show that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not considered.
5. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the notice dated 14.06.2010 issued under Section 636 of the Act and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 06.04.2010 and pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: June 16, 2014 BSB
75 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.19855 of 2010 Date: June 16, 2014 BSB