IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11581 of 2008 Between: N.Upendra S/o.Late N.Narsihha R/o.42-736/15,16,17 Musallam Jung Colony Moulali Malkajgiri,Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 G.H.M.C Rep.by its Commissioner Tank Bund Hyderabad 2 Deputy Commissioner G.H.M.C Malkajgiri Cirlcle- XVII,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Notice UCR No.18/1/2008 dt.14-5-2008 for demolishing constructions in Pr No.42-736/15, and 17 situated at Musallam Jung Colony Moulali Malkajgiri Secunderabad pending petitioner application No.BPS/6085/MKJ/N2/2008 for regularization as illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by N. Upendra assailing the action of the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Malkajgiri Circle-XVII, Hyderabad- second respondent, in issuing notice UCR No.18/I/2008 dated 14.05.2008 directing him to demolish the constructions in Pr.No.42-736/15, 16 and 17 situated at Musallam Jung Colony, Moulali, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad, pending his application No.BPS/6085/MKJ/N2/2008 for regularization. The petitioner claims to have purchased 5300 Sq. Yds. In S.No.358/1 & 2 situated at Musallam Jung, Moulali, S.P.Nagar, Malkajgiri, from Smt. Qamar Razvi and others under a registered sale deed dated 6.05.2002 in his name and in the name of his daughter. Thereafter, he constructed a function hall styling as “Manisha Function Hall”. He submitted an application for regularization of constructions. The second respondent issued notice dated 14.05.2008 under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 directing him to remove the constructions carried out on the subject land. Hence the writ petition. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 28.05.2008. An interim Stay of demolition until further orders also came to be passed on the same day in WPMP No.14949 of 2008. Moinudding Ghalib ﬁled WPMP No.19001 of 2008 seeking his impleadment as respondent No.3 in the writ petition. The said WPMP came to be allowed on 23.07.2008. The third respondent ﬁled WVMP No.2366 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim order. Respondent No.2 ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. Sri D. John Samson has sworn to the counter aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the petitioner failed to submit his explanation to the show cause notice issued under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and therefore, the notice impugned in the writ petition came to be issued directing him to remove/demolish the unauthorized constructions carried out by him within three days. It is further stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the petitioner is not entitled to any beneﬁt for under A.P. Regularization and Penalization of Unauthorisedly constructed buildings and buildings constructed in deviation of Sanctioned Plan Rules, 2007 made by him on the land to which he has no title. For better appreciation, I may refer paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter aﬃdavit and they read as hereunder. “6. It may be relevant to state here that the District Collector in their Lr.No.F1/1737/2005 dated 2.08.2008 advising to the Sub-Registrar Malkajgiri Mandal under intimation to this respondent with a request not to accord construction permissions over the suit schedule property also requested the Sub-Registrar, Malkajgiri to dispense with the execution of sales over the said property until further orders as Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has released the lands in S.No.358/1 & 358/2 admeasuring Ac.9.14 and 0.01 guntas respectively in favour of the LRs of Galib Jung vide reference No.NA2/45/2004 dated 14.03.2005 from the custody of courts of wards.” “7. In view of that, as per Rule 9 (b) (J) & (I) of the said Rules the writ petitioner is not entitled to any beneﬁt for penalization of unauthorized construction which are constructed, as he made it without titled ownership on the land and without obtaining sanctioned plan.” It is the case of the third respondent that the petitioner has no right over the property and therefore he is not entitled to claim any beneﬁt under the Rules called as the Andhra Pradesh Regulation and Penalization of Unauthorizedly constructed buildings, and buildings constructed in deviation of the Sanctioned Plan Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules 2007). The writ petitioner ﬁled reply aﬃdavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, the writ petition itself is taken up for ﬁnal disposal with the consent of counsel appearing for parties. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a valid title to the land over which he made constructions since he acquired the land under registered sale deeds, detailed hereunder. S.No. Document No. Area in Sq. Yds. Date 1 5641/02 265 24.01.2002 2 5640/02 265 24.01.2002 3 5639/02 470 24.01.2002 4 2423/02 530 8.05.2002 5 2422/02 530 8.05.2002 6 2389/02 1008 6.05.2002 7 2100 22.10.2001 He further submits that the third respondent cannot resist the prayer sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition since he has to work out his remedies to get the possession of the property in accordance with the provisions of law. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that the petitioner is entitled to possession of the property and accordingly Tahsildar is taking steps to put the petitioner in possession. A further submission has been made that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization of the constructions allegedly made by him since he has no title to the property. The learned counsel took me to sub-rule (b) (h) (i) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2007 to buttress his submission that the petitioner is not entitled to regularization of construction allegedly made by him on the land in dispute. The petitioner assails the action of the respondent in issuing notice dated 14.05.2008 directing him to remove/demolish the construction made by him. It is the case of the petitioner that he made application for regularization under the Rules, 2007. Indisputably his application is pending for consideration. If the petitioner is not entitled for the beneﬁt under the Rules, 2007, it is always open to respondents 1 and 2 to inform the same to the petitioner and take necessary action and pass appropriate orders on the application ﬁled by the petitioner, if otherwise there is no impediment in disposing the same. This is not the forum for adjudication of the title dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. It is suﬃce to say that the petitioner made certain constructions over the land and thereafter made an application seeking regularization of the constructions claiming beneﬁt under the Rules, 2007. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application ﬁled by the petitioner under the Rules, 2007 and pass appropriate orders if otherwise there is no impediment. Pending disposal of the application ﬁled by the petitioner under the Rules, 2007 there shall be status quo existing as on this day with regard to the structures. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 10th September, 2008 Js. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 G.H.M.C Rep.by its Commissioner Tank Bund Hyderabad 2 Deputy Commissioner G.H.M.C Malkajgiri Cirlcle- XVII,Hyderabad 3 2 CD copies.