THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28517 of 2009 Date: 29.12.2009 Between: Syed Zaheer Ahmed and others …Petitioners and The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28517 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of the premises bearing No.8-3-167/B/4 of Jayantinagar, Sri Ram Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation – the 1st respondent issued notice dated 28.05.2009 under Section 481 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (‘the Act’, for brevity) requiring the petitioner to produce the sanctioned plan along with documents for verification. The petitioner submits that he has complied with the notice. He received another notice dated 07.10.2009, but in respect of premises bearing No.8-3-167/19/A/A, Sri Ram Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, directing the petitioner to explain as to why the portion of the building which is constructed in violation of the stipulated provisions not be demolished. The petitioner contends that under the guise of notice dated 07.10.2009 issued in respect of different premises, his actual premises are sought to be demolished. The petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No.10 himself certified that no premises with No.8-3-167/19/A/A exist. The petitioner seeks appropriate direction in this regard. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. There is an obvious discrepancy as regards the description of the properties mentioned in the notice dated 28.05.2009 on the one hand, and 07.10.2009 on the other hand. The provisions invoked are also different. The petitioner has already submitted explanation in response to the notice dated 28.05.2009. Even now, the respondents are not able to explain the discrepancy. The ultimate action can ensue only with the issuance of the notice under Section 636 of the Act. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and take further action only after a specific finding is given as to the identity of the property of the petitioner and issuance of notice under Section 636 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY December 29, 2009 BVV