THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28524 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the owners of the premises bearing No.8-3-167/B/4 of Jayantinagar, Sri Ram Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the first respondent herein, issued notice dated, 28.05.2009, under Section 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (‘the Act’, for brevity) requiring the petitioners to produce the sanctioned plan along with documents for verification. The petitioners submit that they have complied with the notice. They received another notice dated 07.10.2009, but in respect of premises bearing No.8-3- 167/B/19/A/A, Sri Ram Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, directing them to explain as to why the portion of the building, which is constructed in violation of the stipulated provisions, shall not be demolished. The petitioners contend that under the guise of notice, dated 07.10.2009, issued in respect of different premises, their actual premises are sought to be demolished. The petitioners submit that the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No.10 himself certified that no premises with No.8-3-167/B/19/A/A exist. The petitioners seek appropriate direction in this regard. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. There is an obvious discrepancy as regards the description of the properties mentioned in the notice dated 28.05.2009 on the one hand, and 07.10.2009 on the other. The provisions invoked are also different. The petitioners have already submitted explanation in response to the notice, dated 28.05.2009. Even now, the respondents are not able to explain the discrepancy. The ultimate action can ensue only with the issuance of the notice under Section 636 of the Act. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioners and take further action only after a specific finding is given as to the identity of the property of the petitioners and issuance of notice under Section 636 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:31.12.2009 kdl