THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.7085 OF 2008 6th November 2009 Between: Smt.T.Shankunthala. …PETITIONER AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep.by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and one other. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.7085 of 2008 ORDER: The first respondent issued notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 {“the Act” for brevity}, to the petitioner alleging that she made unauthorized construction of Ground plus First Floor by encroaching the nala vent. The petitioner challenged the notice on several grounds. Reference is made to filing of Writ Petition No.18684 of 2006. In addition, the petitioner contends that the very issuance of notice is impermissible in law. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the notice under Section 452 of the Act would indicate only the nature of violation on the part of the petitioner and that she can very well submit her explanation to it. It is also mentioned that the construction was made upon Government land and inasmuch as road widening is taken up for extension of Nala, they are prepared to pay a sum of Rs.1,44,646/- towards the cost of the affected construction made by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner cannot challenge the show cause notice, when it is not even alleged that the respondents have no jurisdiction to issue it. The petitioner can put forward her contention in reply to the show cause notice. She can be said to have the cause of action if only her contention is rejected and any order detrimental to her interest is passed under Section 636 of the Act. In all fairness, the respondents have expressed their willingness to pay the substantial amount towards the cost of the construction. Now, it is for the petitioner to submit explanation or to straight away agree to receive the compensation, as she may chooses to. The respondents have to pass final orders, if any explanation is submitted. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing that (a) It shall be open to the petitioner to submit explanation within a period of ten {10} days from today; (b) On receipt of the explanation, the respondents shall pass final orders within a period of four {4} weeks thereafter; and (c) Till such time, the respondents shall not demolish the structures in question. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 6th November 2009 RRB