Dated: 25.04.2014 WRIT PETITION No. 21832 of 2008 Between:
Sai Venkateshwara –Ravi Apartment Owners Association, Rep. by its president, D.K.Chowdary and another …..Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and six others.
....Respondents WRIT PETITION No. 23157 of 2010 Between:
G.K.Sundaram …..Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. byits Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and another ....Respondents COMMON ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Corporation in both the writ petitions.
2. W.P.No.21832 of 2008 was filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not taking steps to protect /restore the green belt area by removing encroachment and boundary walls and stopping commercial activity in premises of Sai Venkateswara-Ravi in Municipal No.8-3-214/24A/24B, West Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Hyderabad, as illegal and unconstitutional.
3. But in view of the subsequent developments pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, no further orders are necessary to be passed in the present writ petition. In view of the subsequent action taken by the 2nd respondent, this writ petition is closed.
4. W.P.No.23157 of 2010 was filed by the owner of the land challenging the action taken by the municipal corporation, pursuant to the grievance raised by the petitioner in W.P.No.21832 of 2008.
5. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner of the property admeasuring 400 sq. yards situated at Plot No.13 bearing municipal Door No.8-3-214/24A situated at West Srinivasa Nagar Colny, Hyderabad. He entered into a Development Agreement with M/s.Sri Sai Krupa Constructions on 17.10.2005. Though the development agreement covered an extent of 457 sq.yards, the actual construction was restricted to 400 sq.yards as per development agreement between the developer and the owner.
6. Counter-affidavit was filed by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), stating that the Corporation accorded building permission on the application filed before it along with documents of title, which were prior to the sale deed dated 29.10.2005 executed by the owner and the developer jointly in favour of one Smt.D.Vinoda. The permission for construction was accorded in Permit No.78/1 on 15.05.2004. The permission was for construction of stilt parking + 5 upper floors on a plot area of 743.30 sq. mts. by providing Tot-lot area to the extent of 41.25 sq. mts. towards South-West corner in the said premises. After obtaining building permission, the apartments were constructed. But when the petitioner restricted the entry of apartment inmates to the tot-lot area/ recreation area provided in the South- West corner by erecting gate and putting lock and key, W.P.No.23157 of 2010 was filed.
7. On the complaint of the petitioners in the above writ petition, the respondent-Corporation served a notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) on 24.02.2009 to the petitioner and the President of the Association, who is resident of Plot No.502. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.03.2009 to the said notice and the same was received by Corporation on 05.03.2009. Without considering the said explanation, the Corporation issued a notice under Section 636 of the Act on 15.09.2010 specifically stating that pursuant to notice issued under Section 452 of the Act, the petitioner as well as the President of the Association neither complied with the show-cause notice nor submitted any explanation. This is in correct in view of the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 02.03.2009 and received by the Corporation on 05.03.2009.
8. In view of the explanation submitted by the petitioner for construction of the room in the green belt area, this Court cannot express any opinion on the rival contentions with regard to the tot-lot area in the premises bearing No.8-3-214/24A situated at West Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Hyderabad. Since the right of the petitioner was violated for not considering the explanation submitted on 02.03.2009 before issuing the notice under Section 636 of the Act on 15.09.2010, the impugned notice is set aside and the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation is directed to consider the explanation of the petitioner dated 02.03.2009 pursuant to the notice issued under Section 452 of the Act on 24.02.2009, by giving opportunity to the petitioner or his representative and to the petitioners in W.P.No.21832 of 2008 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
10. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J 25th April 2014.
mar