IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.4265 of 2011 Between: Smt. Naseema Farhat. … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund road, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Ravinder Reddy for Sri M.A.K.Mukheed. Counsel for the respondents: Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in demolishing house bearing No.12-2-823/A/158/A/1 comprised in the land admeasuring 540 square yards situated at Guddimalkapur, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, on 18-2-2011 without notice, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the property mentioned above was purchased by her and thereafter she has approached the respondents for mutation of her name in the Municipal records. It is her further case that she has been paying property tax and has filed receipt No.473, dated 12-6-2009 and 18-7-2009 in support of her plea; that on 18-2- 2011 at about 11 AM the subordinates of the respondents, on the instigation of one Sri G.R.Reddy, came to her property and started demolishing the old structure, without issuing any notice or opportunity to her. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 it is, inter alia, stated that the property, which is claimed by the petitioner, is a vacant land shown as open space earmarked for park in the approved layout of Santoshnagar Co-operative Housing Society, vide: Permit No.59/39, dated 19-5-1957; that as per Rule 10(A) of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Layout) Rules, 1965 open spaces earmarked for park in the layout are vested with the Corporation; and that, in view of the same, the Corporation has the responsibility to protect the said open spaces. It is further averred that the Executive Engineer, Division-8 of the Corporation has commenced construction of a compound wall around it on 2-2-2011 and completed the same on 2-3-2011. Respondent No.3 further pleaded that the sale deed, on which the petitioner is claiming title, is a fabricated one, intended to grab the open space earmarked for the park. He has explained the claim of the petitioner that the Corporation has received land tax by stating that the petitioner has approached respondent No.2 with self-assessment, on the basis of which the latter has fixed the value of the land tax at Rs.43,650/- with effect from 2009 and allotted premises No.12-2- 823/A1/158/A/1 under mistake of fact without physical inspection of the land with reference to the approved layout; and that after realizing the said mistake respondent No.2 has issued letter No.1358/TCT/T5/GHMC/2011, dated 7-4-2011, and served the same on the petitioner on 15-4-2011 asking her to show cause why the assessment should not be cancelled as it was made in respect of the open space earmarked for the park. Respondent No.3 further pointed out that the property number allotted to the petitioner as per assessment order is 12-2- 828/A/158/A1, whereas the property claimed by the petitioner as per sale deed document is bearing No.12- 2-823/158/A. The pleadings of the respective parties referred to above would show that there is a serious dispute regarding the structure, which was stated to have been in existence prior to its purported demolition. Even though the petitioner is placing reliance on the assessment made by respondent No.2, as noted above, it is the case of respondent No.2 that the said assessment was made under a mistake of fact and that immediately on realizing the said mistake a show cause notice was issued and consideration of which is pending. Even according to the petitioner, the building, which was stated to have existed prior to the filing of this Writ Petition, was already removed. In the face of the seriously disputed fact about the very existence of the building, it is not possible for this court to render any conclusive opinion and grant the relief claimed by the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the alleged demolition, she shall approach the civil Court for appropriate relief against the respondents. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, interim order dated 22-2-2011 is vacated and WPMP No.5261 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:25-8-2011 MNR