IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 2759 of 2009 Between: Dr. S. Srinivas S/o. S. Balarama Krishnaiah R/o.8-2-684/11/1, Bhavani Enclave, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, having its Office at Tank Bund, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice issued under Section 636 of The HMC Act, 1955 in No.5002/ACP/CX/W8/2008 dated 16.10.2008 as illegal, null, void and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following ORDER: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.2759 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notice, dated 16.10.2008, issued by the respondent- Corporation calling upon the petitioner to pull down/remove the alleged unauthorized constructions/deviations made by the petitioner in premises bearing No.8-2-684/8/1, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the entire construction was made in accordance with the sanction granted under permit, dated 25.01.2007, and after inspecting the premises, Occupancy Certificate, dated 16.07.2008, was also granted by the Corporation. However, a notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 03.10.2008, was issued by the Corporation alleging that the petitioner had covered the mandatory open space towards Western and Southern sides in deviation to the sanctioned plan and called upon him to submit his explanation. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the said allegation, the Corporation while holding that the explanation was without any merits, issued the impugned notice, dated 16.10.2008, under Section 636 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to pull down/remove the said unauthorized constructions made by him in deviation to the sanctioned plan. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the allegations made by the Corporation are false and without any basis and as a matter fact, in O.S.No.2527 of 2008 filed by the neighbour of the petitioner on the basis of the very same allegations, after hearing both the parties, the learned IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad declined to grant any interim orders. However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is alleged that after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate, dated 16.07.2008, the petitioner had started erecting the iron girders on the rear side towards Western side and the set back has been covered with the slab towards Southern side in the ground floor. These are the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be enquired into by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, keeping in view the controversy in issue between the parties, the impugned notice is set aside and the respondent-Corporation is directed to conduct a joint survey of the premises in question, after due notice to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on the basis of such survey, it is directed to pass orders afresh and communicate the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G.Rohini, J Dt.15.06.2009 VGB