IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16175 of 2009 Between: Mohammed Naveed Ali ..... Petitioner AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G. Rama Krishna Counsel for respondents 1-3: Ms. V. Jayasree for Sri C. Damodar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Damodar Mundra The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16175 of 2009 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.Nil, dated 03.08.2009 of respondent No.3. The petitioner is the owner of shop No.24, ground floor of property bearing No.4-1-896, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. It is his case that he entered into an agreement with the owner of the property for purchase of 2311.5 sq. ft., in second floor. He further pleaded that Sri C. Raghava Reddy and his firm have obtained sanction for construction of a multistoried building from the then Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in 1980 for construction of ground and first floor and that subsequently a further sanction has been obtained by them for construction of second and third floors over the existing ground and first floor vide permit No.141/46 dated 27.04.1987. According to the petitioner, all structural constructions were completed over the second and third floors while internal work remained to be completed. While so, the petitioner received notice dated 23.07.2009 from respondent No.3 under Section 454 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, wherein it is inter alia mentioned that the petitioner is raising illegal and unauthorized construction. The original owner Sri C.Raghava Reddy submitted his explanation to the said notice, wherein it is stated that he has obtained the properties in an auction held on 05.12.2005 from the other co-owners for a valid consideration, that building permission was obtained vide permit No.141/46, dated 27.04.1987 and that in pursuance of the said permission, second and third floors are existing over the ground and first floors. It is further stated that recently some of the internal modifications and alterations were being renewed and that he was proposing to sell the property to Mohammed Naveed Ali (the writ petitioner). He has accordingly denied the allegations of violation in construction of second and third floors, which were claimed to be in existence since the year 1998. He has therefore requested for withdrawal of notice dated 23.07.2009. Thereafter, notice dated 01.08.2009 was addressed by the respondents to the petitioner/Raghava Reddy directing them to appear before the Commissioner and Special Officer, GHMC on 04.08.2009 along with the material available with them to support their claim regarding the disputed construction. Simultaneously, on the same day, the impugned order is issued under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, wherein the petitioner was called upon to remove the unauthorized structure within three days failing which the same shall be removed departmentally at the petitioner’s expense. It is mentioned in the said notice that office room is unauthorizedly constructed in the second floor. At the hearing, Sri G. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.1, having issued notice on 01.08.2009 calling upon the petitioner to appear along with the documents, ought not to have issued the impugned notice. Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondent, who also filed vacate stay application, submitted that in pursuance of order dated 26.06.2009 in Writ Petition No.12547 of 2009 passed by this Court at the instance of the impleaded respondent, respondent No.1 has invited the petitioner and Sri Raghava Reddy for a meeting by notice dated 01.08.2009 and that during the said meeting, it came out that the permit obtained by Sri Raghava Reddy and his firm in the year 1987 has expired long back and therefore the construction raised subsequent thereto is illegal. The learned counsel invited this Court’s attention to the averment contained in the counter-affidavit to this effect. He has also produced before this Court proceedings dated 12.08.2009, wherein the Commissioner and Special Officer of respondent No.1 Corporation has passed an order following the meeting held on 04.08.2009. A perusal of the said proceedings shows that permission for construction of second and third floors was accorded in the year 1987, that the second floor slab was laid in the year 1989 and that no further construction was taken up in accordance with the approval given in the year 1987. It is also mentioned therein that after examining the issue in detail, it was concluded that the construction cannot be undertaken 22 years after the grant of permission and that if the construction was not completed within three years of the sanction, the same is rendered invalid. The following directions were issued by respondent No.1 in the said order. “1. Smt. Suvarna W/o. Sri K.V. Krishna Reddy who is one of the owner of the partnership firm are directed to apply afresh based on the present building rules for any further construction in the same building. At the time of considering the building permission, all issued including the title will be examined by the GHMC. 2. The respondents are hereby directed to give an undertaking that they will not make any additional construction until valid permission is obtained from GHMC. 3. Sri C. Raghava Redy who has constructed shop in second floor is hereby directed to apply for building permission in accordance with current rules. The constructed portion of Sri C.Raghava Reddy will be scaled by GHMC and will be allowed to be used only after the building permission is accorded.” Having regard to the abovementioned order passed after filing of this Writ Petition, whereunder the owner of the property was allowed to apply for fresh permission, the threat of demolition of the building can no longer be said to be in existence. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by any of the directions issued in the said order dated 12.08.2009, he shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Subject to the liberty given as above to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.21232 of 2009 and 13674 of 2010 and WVMP.No.4190 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.06.2011 ES