HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.15446 of 2011 Date : 2-8-2011 Between : Smt.Bhagyasree Narayan Purude .. Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Represented by its Commissioner, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri V.M.M. Chary Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, Standing Counsel for GHMC Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri Nyayapathi Prasanth The Court made the following: 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 declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s right over the property admeasuring 100 sq. yards in premises bearing No.18-4-123 of Kalwalguda, Aliabad, Hyderabad, without considering her representation dated 6-6-2011 as illegal and arbitrary. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that she has commenced construction of the building over the plot admeasuring 100 sq. yards purchased by her. It is her case that under the bona fide impression that there is no requirement of obtaining permission for construction of the building having regard to the small size of the plot, she has started the construction. Respondent No.1 issued a notice under Section 452(1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") on 28-3-2011. The petitioner submitted that even though no written explanation was given by her to the said notice, she was present on 2-4-2011, the date fixed for her appearance before respondent No.2, and explained her case. However, by order dated 5-4-2011 respondent No.1 has concluded that as the petitioner did not submit her explanation to the said show cause notice, further action will be taken as per Section 636 of the Act. Respondent No.4, who is a neighbour of the petitioner and claims to be the sufferer on account of the blatant violation of the building bye-laws in construction of the building by the petitioner, got herself impleaded in the Writ Petition. According to respondent No.4, it is on her complaint that the Municipal Corporation has initiated action under the provisions of the Act against the unauthorized construction undertaken by the petitioner. At the hearing, Sri V.M.M.Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that while his client has undoubtedly committed a mistake by raising the construction without obtaining the permission, he has however stated that on 25-6-2011, the petitioner has made an application under Section 455-A of the Act for regularization of the unauthorized construction of the building. In my opinion, the petitioner ought not to have raised the construction without obtaining the building permission. Even though the petitioner pleaded that she has appeared before respondent No.2 on 2-4-2011, the fact remains that she failed to submit her explanation to the notice dated 28-3-2011. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in issuing the impugned order under Section 452(2) of the Act. Ordinarily, with the above conclusion reached by this court, the Writ Petition would have been dismissed. But, as noted above, the petitioner claimed that she has submitted her application for regularization of the building on 25-6- 2011. The petitioner is therefore directed to comply with the requirements of Section 455-A of the Act within a period of one month from today. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for regularization strictly in terms of Section 455-A of the Act, after giving a notice to respondent No.4 calling for her objections and an opportunity of personal hearing to both the parties and take a final decision thereon within two months, before seeking to proceed further in pursuance of order dated 5-4-2011. It is brought to the notice of this court that even though the construction of the building by the petitioner was completed on the front side, the construction is incomplete on the rear side abutting the house of respondent No.4. Till a decision is taken by respondent No.2, the petitioner shall not be permitted to raise further construction. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order 8-6-2011, as extended until further orders by order dated 20-6-2011, is vacated and WPMP No.18520/2011 and WVMP No.2710/2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 2-8-2011 AM