THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION Nos.15800 and 15819 of 2009 Dated: 04.08.2009 WRIT PETITION No.15800 of 2009 Between: Rajendra Prasad Bhatnagar .. Petitioner And The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents WRIT PETITION No.15819 of 2009 Between: Mrs. Sarita Bhatnagar .. Petitioner And The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in these two writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. These two writ petitions are filed questioning the notices dated 29.07.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent- Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section, Circle No.IV, South Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, under Section 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), whereunder, alleging that the petitioners were proceeding with constructions in their respective premises bearing Nos.17-1-374/43 and 17-1-376/50, situated at Santhoshnagar Colony, Hyderabad, against the provisions of the Act, the petitioners were directed to stop further constructions forthwith and submit copy of the sanctioned plan, if any, along with ownership documents for verification of boundaries of the said premises, within three days from the date of receipt of the notices. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been proceeding with the constructions after obtaining due permission under Section 428 of the Act and the 2nd respondent has no authority, under Section 461 of the Act, to prevent the petitioners from proceeding with the constructions and require production of the ownership documents. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that there are certain discrepancies with regard to the boundaries of the subject premises and, therefore, the petitioners were asked to produce the necessary documents for verification of the boundaries of the subject premises. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel that there are certain discrepancies with regard to the boundaries of the subject premises requiring verification of the ownership documents, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with the following directions: “The petitioners are directed to produce the necessary documents before the 2nd respondent, as required by him, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and, on such production, the 2nd respondent shall peruse them and pass appropriate orders as to whether the petitioners can proceed with the constructions or not, within a period of three days thereafter. It is also made clear that, if any adverse order is passed, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.” The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 4th August, 2009 IBL