THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO. 653 OF 2007 Dt: 10-02-2011 Between: Mohammed Shafee Siddiqui …..Petitioner And The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, represented by its Commissioner, Tankbund, Hyderabad & Others …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No. 653 of 2007 ORDER The petitioner purchased premises bearing No.8-2-740/A/1/7, situated at Bhola Nagar, First Lancers, Hyderabad admeasuring 180 sq. yards through sale deed dated 3.3.1987. A building was already existing. However, on finding that the permission was not obtained for construction of the building, the petitioner submitted an application to the Municipal Corporation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.419, Municipal Administration, dated 30.7.1998. It was only on 6.11.2006 that the petitioner was issued proceedings to the effect that the application is rejected on the ground that part of the building is in Nala Portion. The petitioner challenges said order. He contends that the respondents did not undertake inspection, nor any notice was issued and the impugned order was passed 7 years after the application was submitted. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the premises were inspected in the year 1999 itself and the Committee which was constituted to consider the applications of this nature, rejected the application of the petitioner on 8.11.1999. It is stated that the decision was communicated in the year 2006. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.Y.Padmavathi, Standing Counsel for G.H.M.C. It is rather unfortunate that the result of the application submitted by the petitioner in the year 1998, was communicated 8 years thereafter. According to the respondents, the inspection of the site was made on 20.7.1999 and that the Committee which was entrusted with the task of examination of applications has taken a decision on 8.11.1999 to reject it. On none of the occasions, the petitioner was put on notice. Unilateral opinion was formed and decisions were taken. Added to that, the decision was communicated in the year 2006. Hardly there is an explanation for such inordinate delay though reference is made to the pendency of writ petition No.22613 of 1998, wherein the G.O.Ms.No.419 was challenged, hardly that has any impact upon the dismissal of the application. If the premises of the petitioner are in any Government nala, the question of regularisation of construction does not arise. However, before an opinion is formed that part of the construction is in Nala, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to explain the factual situation. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the application afresh by making personal instruction, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the deficiencies, if any. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Dt: 10.02.2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO. 653 OF 2007 DATE: 10.02.2011