THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 21675 of 2009 Oral order: Impugning the notice dated 30.09.2009 issued by respondent No.2, namely the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, calling upon the petitioner to show cause within 10 days why the compound wall and shed constructed in the premises in question, should not be removed/pulled down, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even before respondent No.2 issued the impugned show cause notice dated 30.09.2009, respondent No.1, namely the Deputy Commissioner, Circle-X, GHMC, based on the opinion given by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, that the petitioner has no title over the property, issued proceedings dated 25.09.2009, rejecting the application dated 29.04.2009 filed by the petitioner under the Building Penalization Scheme. He submitted that since respondent No.2 has pre- determined that the petitioner has no title over the property, his submission of explanation to the impugned show cause notice, would only be an empty formality, and therefore, the petitioner without submitting the explanation has filed the present writ petition questioning the impugned show cause notice, and prayed that the same be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. On behalf of the respondents-Corporation, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the application dated 29.04.2009 filed by the petitioner under Building Penalization Scheme was rejected by respondent No.1, vide proceedings dated 25.09.2009, based on the opinion of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, while the present impugned show cause notice dated 30.09.2009 has been issued by respondent No.2, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner constructed the compound wall and shed without obtaining permission from the respondents. Both of them are distinct and independent and have no connection to each other. The petitioner without submitting his explanation to the impugned show cause notice has filed the present writ petition questioning the same. She submitted that the petitioner is at liberty to submit her explanation to the show cause notice, and if he submits explanation supported by necessary material, then the respondents will consider the same without reference to the proceedings dated 25.09.2009 issued by respondent No.1. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner over the property and has valid title thereto, and that he has constructed the compound wall and shed after obtaining permission from the respondents, and that if an opportunity is given, the petitioner would prove his ownership to the property. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Though in the impugned show cause notice dated 30.09.2009, issued by respondent No.1, a reference is made to the proceedings dated 25.09.2009, issued by respondent No.2, but in it is specifically contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, that the impugned show cause notice dated 30.09.2009, issued by respondent No.2, is not based on the proceedings dated 25.09.2009, issued by respondent No.1, and considering the stand taken by the petitioner that if an opportunity is given he would prove his ownership to the property and that he made the constructions after obtaining permission from the respondents, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner shall submit his explanation to the impugned show cause notice dated 30.09.2009, issued by respondent No.1, within a period of two weeks from today, enclosing documentary evidence, which evidences his title to the property and also the fact that he made the constructions upon obtaining proper permissions from the respondent, and if any such explanation is submitted, the respondents shall consider the same in the light of the documentary evidence to be place by the petitioner, and pass appropriate speaking orders. Till such exercise is undertaken, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 09.09.2009 Note: Wire at party’s cost. (B/o) KSR