HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.18311 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 405 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), requiring the petitioner to remove encroachment on a place, which is said to be earmarked as open place. The petitioner contends that he purchased plot No.139/A admeasuring 350 square metres at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, from Sri Venkateswara Cooperative House Building Society, the 3rd respondent, through sale deed, dated 30.08.1993. It is stated that adjoining his plot, there exists open place, which vested in the Municipal Corporation and under a mistaken impression, respondents 1 and 2 are proceeding, as though the plot purchased by the petitioner is open place. It is also stated that Section 405 of the Act applies only to such cases, where there is no dispute as to the nature of the property and the respondents ought to have issued a notice under Section 406 of the Act. Heard Sri V.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Dr.Y.Padmavathi, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2. None appears for the 3rd respondent. Section 405 of the Act empowers the 2nd respondent to remove anything, which is erected, deposited, hawked or exposed for sale in contravention of the Act. Such is not the case here. The petitioner claims absolute ownership over the plot in question. In case the Corporation intends to remove any encroachment from its property, procedure prescribed under Section 406 of the Act has to be followed. Even now the notice issued to the petitioner is to be treated as the one issued under Section 406 of the Act. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, and the impugned notice shall be treated as the one issued under Section 406 of the Act and it shall be open to the petitioner to submit explanation, together with supporting material, within a period of 15 days from today. The 2nd respondent shall consider the same and if necessary give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, before any final orders are passed. Till such time, the possession of the petitioner over the plot shall not be disturbed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:30.03.2011 GJ