THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.22420 OF 2011 DATED:03.11.2011 Between: Smt. G. Sudha … Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner, Office at Tank Bund Hyderabad and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.22420 OF 2011 ORDER: 1) This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned order dt.15.7.2011 and initiating proceedings to demolish/remove the door existing to petitioner’s Flat No.103, Rainbow Residency, situated at Nacharam Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential directions. 2) It is stated by the petitioner in her affidavit that she purchased the above said flat under a Registered sale deed dt.9.3.2011. There is a main entrance to the flat of the petitioner at dead-end corner of the corridor in the first floor of the complex, which is in existence since the date of acquisition of said flat by one Venkateshwar Reddy from the builder. The said flat No.103 was assessed to property tax from 2006 onwards and the tax is being paid from then onwards. While the matter stood thus, the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner, under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the ground that she erected a door to her flat without valid permission. It is stated that the said flat has only one entrance. The petitioner gave reply to the notice issued by the respondents. Without considering the petitioner’s reply, the impugned notice dt.15.7.2011 was issued by the second respondent. Challenging the same, present writ petition is filed. 3) The second respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is inter alia stated therein that the occupant of Flat No.102 of the said building gave a complaint to the respondent Corporation stating that the petitioner unauthorizedly opening a door contrary to the sanctioned plan. On the said complaint, the officials of the respondent Corporation inspected the premises and noticed that the petitioner opened a door to flat No.103 contrary to the sanctioned plan. It is further submitted that even for alteration of any structure to the existing premises, one has to obtain prior permission from the Corporation and admittedly the door was opened towards the corridor contrary to the sanctioned plan and neither the builder nor the petitioner has obtained any permission for change of the door. Hence, the respondent Corporation issued a notice dt.1.7.2011 under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the Act to the petitioner for which the petitioner gave reply, through an advocate, on 5.7.2011 stating that the door towards the dead-end of the corridor of the floor was erected much before acquisition of the flat and prior to the assessment of property tax of the flat. Having not satisfied with the reply, the respondent Corporation also issued a notice under Section 452(2) of the Act, on 15.7.2011, to the petitioner. As there was no response from the petitioner, the officials of the respondent Corporation went to the place and partially removed the door and in the mean time, as a message was received from the Counsel for the respondent Corporation, they stopped the demolition/removal of the door. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that main entrance of the door was in existence from the time the vendor of the petitioner purchased the flat from the builder and she has not changed the same and that the property was subjected to assessment of tax in the year 2006 and the tax is being paid from 2006 onwards and that there is no violation of any building rules so as to take further action. He, therefore, submits that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notice is illegal and arbitrary. He also relied on a judgment of this Court in 3 ACES, Hyderabad v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[1], in support of his case. 5) On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation contended that even for change of main door also permission has to be obtained from the Corporation under Section 443 of the Act, and no such permission was obtained. 6) It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased the flat in question from her vendor under a registered sale deed. According to the petitioner, the builder himself has put up a door to the flat at a particular place which is the only entrance for use of the occupants of the flat, that since the date of construction of the apartment, the door is in existence in the same position, and the petitioner has not changed the door at any point of time, and that property tax of the flat is being paid to the respondent Corporation for the last eight years and the respondent Corporation has not taken any objection for existence of the main door to the flat. 7) Section 443 of the Act stipulates that “no person shall without the written permission of the Commissioner or otherwise than in conformity with the terms of such permission make any alteration or cause any alteration to be made in an existing building originally constructed or authorized to be used for human habitation for the purpose of using it or causing it to be used as a godown, warehouse, workshop, workplace, factory, stable or motor garage”. The provision makes it clear that alteration to the building cannot be made without written permission from the Commissioner, in the case of an existing building originally constructed. Such is not the case here because the building was already constructed about eight years ago and insofar as the petitioner is concerned, she is not making any alternations having purchased the flat for a valuable consideration, and living peacefully. 8) I n 3 ACES, Hyderabad case (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held: “… In cases where applications have been duly filed in accordance with law, after fulfilling all requirements, seeking permission to construct buildings and permission was also granted by the Corporation, the power of demolition should be exercised by the Corporation only if the deviations made, during the construction are not in public interest or cause public nuisance or hazardous or dangerous to public safety including the residents therein. If the deviations of violation are minor, minimal or trivial which do not affect public at large, the Corporation will not resort to demolition.” 9) From the above decision, it is clear that after grant of permission by the Corporation for construction of a building, the power of demolition should be exercised by the Corporation only if the deviations made, during the construction are not in public interest or cause public nuisance or hazardous or dangerous to public safety including the residents therein. The alteration/change of the main door to the flat in question would not in any manner affect public interest or cause public nuisance or hazardous or dangerous to public safety. If the Corporation is of the view that the case falls under Section 443 of the Act, then it should have issued a notice to then owner of the building, when the property was assessed to tax. Such an action has not been taken by the Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner, who is the subsequent purchaser and who has not made any alteration to the flat, cannot be made to suffer for certain alternations made by the builder. None of the owners of the flats has complained in this regard to the Corporation and one of the occupants of the flats complained to the Corporation. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10) The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dt.15.7.2011 passed by the second respondent is set aside. No costs. _______________________ K.C. BHANU, J 03.11.2011 bnr [1] 1994 (3) ALT 73 : 1995 (1) ALD 1