THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition Nos. 3443 and 5083 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners and respondents are one and the same in both the writ petitions, and since the dispute involved in the writ petitions arises out of the same subject matter, they are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners are purchasers of flats in the building in question constructed by respondent No.3-builder. They state that respondent No.3-builder was sanctioned building plan to construct ground + three upper floors by respondent Nos.1 and 2-Corporation, but in contravention thereof, respondent No.3-builder constructed cellar and shops in the ground floor, and by such unauthorized construction of shops in the ground floor, they are deprived of car parking etc. The petitioners further state that complaining about the unauthorized constructions made by respondent No.3-builder, they made representations dated 29.05.2006, 31.05.2006 and 21.06.2006 to respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation, requesting them to demolish the unauthorized constructions, and it is their grievance that no action thereon had been taken. Hence, they filed W.P.No.3443 of 2007, praying to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation, to consider the representations dated 29.05.2006, 31.05.2006 and 21.06.2006 and take action against the illegal constructions made by respondent No.3- builder in the said Plaza. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2-Corporation, its Commissioner, filed counter-affidavit in W.P. No. 3443 of 2007 stating that, upon noticing certain deviations in the construction of the building being made by respondent No.3-builder, the Corporation intended to initiate appropriate action, but one Sri. V. Narayan Karan Reddy, who is the owner of the plot in which construction is being made, approached the Civil Court and filed suit in O.S. No.6619 of 2004 and obtained interim injunction on 09.11.2004 in I.A. No. 1371 of 2004, and in the guise of the said interim injunction order, respondent No.3-builder proceeded with the construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan. It is further stated that though initially interim injunction was granted, but later, by order dated 19.02.2007, the interim injunction order was vacated and the I.A. was dismissed. Pursuant thereto, the Corporation issued show-cause notice dated 20.02.2007 to the owner of the plot under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), pointing out the constructions made by respondent No.3-builder in deviation of the sanctioned plan, and directed him to remove the said unauthorized constructions within a period of ten days from the date of its receipt. It is further stated that since the said ten days’ time granted to remove the illegal constructions has not expired, they have not taken any action, and they would take appropriate action after expiry of the said period. As the owner of the plot as well as respondent No.3-builder appear to have not removed the illegal constructions, respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation, issued final notice dated 06.03.2007, under Section 636 of the Act, to the owner of the plot, directing him to remove the alleged unauthorized constructions within a period of three days of its receipt. Questioning the said final notice dated 06.03.2007, issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation, as illegal and arbitrary, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 5083 of 2007. The petitioners contend that the owner of the plot was no more by the date of issuance of final notice dated 06.03.2007. The civil suit, alleged to have been filed by the owner of the plot, does not relate to the building in question. The petitioners, in fact, sought demolition of the illegal constructions made by respondent No.3-builder in the cellar and shops in the ground floor, but respondent No.3-builder and respondent No.4-son of the owner, in active connivance with the officials of respondent Nos.1 and 2-Corporation, got issued show- cause notice and final notice, for removal of the constructions relating to the flats purchased by the petitioners and not the illegal constructions pointed out by them in the representations. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not filed any counter in W.P.No.5083 of 2007. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation. None appeared for the unofficial respondents. Admittedly, in W.P.No.3443 of 2007, the petitioners have questioned the inaction of respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation in taking action against the illegal constructions made by the builder in the building in which they purchased flats. While the said writ petition is pending, respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation have issued notice to the owner of the building, namely Sri. V. Narayan Karan Reddy. Since respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation have issued notice to the owner of the building directing him to remove the unauthorized constructions, the grievance of the petitioners in W.P.No.3443 of 2007 stands redressed. Accordingly, W.P.No.3443 of 2007 is closed. However, after issuance of the said notice to Sri. V. Narayan Karan Reddy, the petitioners filed W.P.No.5083 of 2007 contending that respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation, instead of issuing notices to the builder, have issued notices to the owner of the plot, directing him to remove the illegal constructions, and the constructions so referred to in the notice, do not relate to the one complained of by them in their representations, but relate to the flats purchased by them. This apart, respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation have issued notices in the name of the owner of the plot namely Sri. V. Narayan Reddy, who is no more, and in the guise of the said notices, are taking steps to demolish the constructions, relating to their flats, and it is their grievance that no such demolition can be effected without issuing any notices to them. I have seen the notices issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2- Corporation under Sections 452 and 636 of the Act. They are issued in the name of the owner of the building. May be the petitioners are purchasers of flats in the building, but as the building stands in the name of the owner, respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation have issued notices in his name. May be the builder has made the illegal constructions, and the petitioners had purchased flats in the building constructed by the builder, but the fact remains, the building still stands in the name of the owner of the building. As the building stands in the name of Sri. V. Narayan Karan Reddy, respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation have issued notices directing him to remove the unauthorized constructions. If the petitioners have purchased flats in the building, they should have got their names entered in the municipal records and, in the absence of their names being entered in the municipal records, the petitioners cannot complain that respondent Nos.1 and 2- Corporation did not issue notices to them. Since the name of the owner of the building was available in the municipal records, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have issued notices to him and no fault can be found with such action of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Since the owner of the building has not challenged the notice, the same need not be interfered with. However, since it is the specific case of the petitioners that they have purchased flats in the building in question and that respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation, instead of taking action for demolition of the illegal constructions made in the cellar portion, as pointed out by them in their representations, have issued notice to the owner of the building seeking to demolish the constructions relating to the flats purchased by them, and that if in pursuance of the said notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation takes steps to demolish the constructions, their flats will be affected, and having regard to the fact that neither the owner of the building nor the builder have questioned the notice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of W.P. No. 5083 of 2007 with the following directions: “If the petitioners produce registered sale deeds to show that they have purchased flats in the building in question, and they are the rightful owners thereof, respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation shall permit the petitioners to submit their objections. Upon the petitioners submitting their objections, if any, respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation shall consider them and pass appropriate orders and take necessary action in accordance therewith. So far as the other unauthorized constructions, not connected with the flats purchased by the petitioners, are concerned, respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Corporation are at liberty to remove them”. Accordingly, W.P. No. 5083 of 2007 is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 25th January, 2010 IBL