THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.13747 of 2009 DATED: 07.08.2009 Between: Devkishan Panwar and others. .. Petitioners And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.13747 of 2009 ORDER: According to the petitioners, they are the absolute owners and possessors of the property admeasuring 400 sq. yards situated at Municipal No.14-9-408 to 410/1, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad, having purchased the same by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 21.02.2007, and since the date of purchase of the said property, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is their claim that, after obtaining sanction from the respondent authorities for construction of stilt plus two upper floors on the said property, they proceeded with the construction work by maintaining mandatory setbacks in compliance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). While so, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned notice dated 07.07.2009, under Section 636 of the Act, to the petitioners directing them to remove the unauthorized constructions or constructions made in deviation of the sanction plan over the property in question, within 24 hours from the date of receipt of the notice. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities have straightaway issued the impugned notice, without issuing show cause notice under Section 452 of the Act specifying the deviations alleged to have been made by them and granting time to them either to submit reply or demolish the alleged constructions made in deviation of the sanction plan. Hence, this writ petition. This Court, on 09.07.2009, taking into consideration of the specific plea of the petitioner that the impugned notice was issued without issuing show cause notice under Section 452 of the Act, has granted interim stay of demolition of the constructions alleged to have been made by the petitioners in deviation of the sanction plan Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that on 03.07.2008 itself, show cause notice, under Section 452 of the Act, issued in the name of the petitioners was served on the representative present at the subject property, but the respondents could not obtain acknowledgement from the said representative. He, however, agreed that the impugned notice can be set aside and he also handed over a copy of the said show notice dated 03.07.2008 issued by the respondents under Section 452 of the Act to the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, the impugned notice dated 07.07.2009 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to give a reply to the show notice dated 03.07.2008 issued by the respondents under Section 452 of the Act, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, on such explanation to be submitted by the petitioners, the respondent Corporation is directed to consider and take necessary action thereupon expeditiously. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 07.08.2009 v v