IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 20860 of 2006 Between: Smt. T. Devaki Devi, W/o. Nanda Gopal, R/o. H.No.1-1-102/116, RTC X Roads, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep.by its Commissioner, Municipal Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the petitioner property bearing M.No.3- 4-784, 3-4-785 and 3-4-1081&1082(part), now bearing Municipal No.3- 4-784 and 3-4-785 admeasuring 1580 sq.yards, situated at Kachiguda,Hyderabad is illegaa, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SHIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondent- Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Municipal Nos.3-4-784, 3-4-785 and 3-4-1081&1082(part), now bearing Municipal Nos.3-4-784 and 3-4-785 admeasuring 1580 sq.yards, situated at Kachiguda, Hyderabad without issuing any notice as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice. The case of the petitioner is that she acquired the property in question by virtue of oral partition and arrangement from her husband and after obtaining a valid permit from the respondent authorities, she constructed the buildings. When the respondent officials tried to interfere with her possession of the properties in the year 2005, she filed O.S.No.2228 of 2005 on the file of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and also filed I.A.No.561 of 2005 seeking temporary injunction and accordingly vide orders dated 19.5.2005 injunction orders were granted and the same are still subsisting. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the injunction orders are still in subsistence, the respondent authorities are trying to interfere with her possession of the properties without issuing any notice. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the parties had taken two different permissions for construction of commercial complexes but they have commenced the work by constructing a single commercial- cum-residential complex, for which they have to obtain a written permission from the Commissioner and, therefore, the entire construction is an unauthorized one. It is stated that the respondent has issued notices to the persons who have obtained building permission and that the petitioner has no locus over the said property as she is not having any valid title to the property in question.It is further stated that even though the Court below granted interim injunction orders, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2130 of 2005 dated 7.7.2006 stated that notwithstanding the tenor and nature of the injunction orders passed in all the cases pending in the courts of Hyderabad, Secunderabad and Ranga Reddy, none of the persons, who are either plaintiffs or appellants before the Courts shall be entitled to raise construction over the disputed site. Accordingly, the respondent has issued a notice on 26.9.2006 to the respective owners under Section 452(1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) duly giving sufficient time for submitting the explanation, if any, or to bring down the construction work in accordance with the sanctioned plan and after expiry of the time specified in the notice, final notice under Section 452 (2) of the Act was issued on 4.10.2006. The above narration of the facts clearly indicate that in the guise of the interim injunction orders obtained from the civil Court, the petitioner is making the construction and the respondent has already issued notices to the persons who have obtained the permission. Since it is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner of the property in question and that she obtained permission from the respondent officials and is making the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice issued by the respondent on 26.9.2006 within one week from today. If the petitioner submits the explanation within the stipulated time, the respondent shall take into consideration the same and take necessary action in accordance with law without reference to the injunction orders granted by the civil Court as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2130 of 2005. It is made clear that meanwhile, the petitioner shall not create any third party interest over the property in question. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.27.1.2009 msv