THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1218 OF 2011 DATED:20-12-2011 Between: Maddirala Sulochanamma … Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep., by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad and two others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1218 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 12-12-2011 passed by a learned single Judge in WPMP No. 40415 of 2011 in WP No. 32516 of 2011. 2. The appellant is the wife of Thimma Reddy. The said Thimma Reddy is absconding and is said to have applied for anticipatory bail. Thimma Reddy is the co-owner of a building along with Narayana Reddy who has been arrested on 08-12-2011 by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). 3. The two joint owners constructed a massive building consisting of stilt + seven floors even though sanction was accorded to construct a building of stilt + four floors. 4. Apart from the fact that the construction of the building was unauthorized, the construction had commenced without serving due notice on the respondents. 5. On these broad facts, the respondents issued a notice to the joint owners of the building under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) on 11-01-2010. This was followed by another notice under Section 636 of the Act on 18- 1-2010. 6. The appellant very conveniently says that she is not aware of the official dealings of her husband but in the same breath says that these notices were not received by her husband or the other joint owner. We cannot accept the statement of the appellant since it appears to be a self-serving statement. 7. On 07-02-2011, a further notice was given to the joint owners of the building under Sections 636 and 461-A of the Act intimating that the building was unauthorized and that it would require to be demolished. 8. None of the joint owners of the building was available in the premises and the inmates of the building, apparently including the appellant, did not accept the notice. Accordingly, the notice was pasted on the wall of the building. 9. Fearing demolition, the appellant preferred a writ petition in which an application for interim relief was moved for stay of the demolition process. 10. The learned single Judge who heard the matter came to the conclusion that this was not a case for grant of any interim relief since there was a violation of the sanctioned plan and even otherwise, there was no ground for granting any interim relief. It was held that the appellant did not make out any prima facie case for the grant of interim relief. Accordingly, the application for interim relief was dismissed by the learned single Judge. 11. Before us, it is contended in appeal that the provisions of law have not been complied with by the respondents inasmuch as the date and time of demolition of the building has not been specified in the notice. 12. We find from a perusal of the paper book that the matter has been going on for the last almost two years and despite the fact that the appellant’s husband is a retired government servant, there has been no attempt by him and his co-owner to even comply with the provisions of law. The sanctioned plan was for construction of stilt + four floors but the joint owners of the building constructed stilt + seven floors and that too without even informing the respondents about the commencement of construction. 13. There is absolutely no doubt that the construction is unauthorized and the learned single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that no prima facie case has been made out by the appellant for grant of any interim relief. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 14. The appeal is dismissed and the miscellaneous application is also disposed of. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 20-12-2011 ks