THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 34691 OF 2011 O R D E R: 1. This writ petition is filed to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Notice vide proc. No.1861/TPS/C-18/NZ/GHMC/B1/2008, dated 24.12.2011 contrary to the occupancy certificate dated 20.12.2010 and against the orders of this Court n WP No.6226 of 2011, dated 23.8.2011, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: Petitioner is absolute owner and possession of SSR Enclave situated in premises No.12-13-705/9/A situated at Tarnaka, Lalaguda, Secunderabad, having constructed the building consisting of stilt for parking + 4 upper floors as per the approved layout and plan. The respondents also issued occupancy certificate vide proc. No.1861/TPS/NZ/GHMC/B1/2008, dated 20.12.2010 stating that they inspected the building and it conforms in all respects to the requirements of building regulations in respect of structural safety, hygiene and sanitary conditions and is fit for occupation, and accordingly, released 10% mortgaged built up area. The respondents also issued proceedings dated 20.12.2010 requesting the Sub Registrar, Maredpally to delete entry from prohibitory property watch register to enable to return the mortgage portion. Earlier, when the respondents issued a notice dated 14.2.2011 demanding to stop construction and produce sanctioned plan, if any, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6226 of 2011 wherein this Court granted interim direction on 10.3.2011. However, as the respondents demolished compound wall on 15.3.2011, Contempt Case No.366 of 2011 was filed which was closed directing the respondents to verify the area where the petitioner constructed the compound wall with reference to the approved layout, and also disposed of the Writ Petition to follow the direction in the Contempt Case. The respondents, without giving any opportunity as directed by this court, issued the impugned proceedings stating that the authorities inspected the site and verified with the sanctioned plan as per the direction of this Court in the above Writ Petition, and it is observed that the petitioner encroached to a depth of 10” towards northern side and 5’ towards western side i.e. petitioner constructed the building in more than the permitted land area, and accordingly, directing him to remove the constructions within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents authorities issued occupancy certificate dated 20.12.2010 stating that the building conforms in all respects to the requirements of building regulations; that, without there being any notice, the respondents are trying to demolish the structures in the petitioner’s site; that the respondents have not followed the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 23.8.2011 in Writ Petition No.6226 of 2011; that, the impugned notice does not indicate any provision of law and the details of inspection have not been noted in the notice, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned notice. 4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the occupancy certificate was issued long prior to the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No.6226 of 2011; that in pursuance of the order of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition, the respondents verified the site in question along with approved lay out and sanctioned plan and found that there is encroachment to a depth of 10’ towards northern side and 5’ towards western side; that the petitioner constructed the building contrary to the sanctioned plan and in more than the permitted land area; that, no notice is required as per the directions of this Court and also in view of the fact that the action is initiated under Section 405 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), and hence, she prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. As seen from the impugned order, a direction was given by this court in Common Order in Writ Petition Nos. 6226 of 2011 and 15959 of 2011, wherein it is stated that the petitioner encroached certain area by raising compound wall, and that neighbourers of that area complained to the municipal authorities that the petitioner constructed compound wall unauthorisedly. The case was closed directing the respondents to verify the area where the petitioner constructed the compound wall with reference to the approved layout, and if it emerges that the petitioner did not encroach any lane shown in the layout, it shall be open to him to construct the compound wall at the place where it existed, and if it emerges that the area concerned is part of any lane, he shall not be entitled to do so. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that this Court directed municipal authorities to verify the construction of the compound wall with reference to layout. The layout of the site in question is not in dispute. The only aspect in dispute is that the construction is contrary to the approved plan or not. Whether the petitioner constructed the compound wall in accordance with the sanctioned plan or not, is sufficient for adjudication of the issue, but not with reference to lay out because there is no dispute with regard to the size of the plot with regard to dimensions. Therefore, the contention that the respondents have acted contrary to the direction given by this court, cannot be accepted. 7. No doubt, in the impugned notice, details of date of inspection and by whom it was made and whether any notice is given to any person, etc. are not furnished. But, the impugned notice would go to show that the petitioner encroached to a depth of 10’ towards northern side and 5’ depth towards western side and that he constructed the building in more than the permitted land area. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner has to construct the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan. If he has not constructed, it is liable for demolition. It must be shown by the petitioner by producing relevant documents and other material to show that he has not encroached to a depth of 10’ towards northern side and 5’ depth towards western side. He did not produce any material to show that his construction is completely in accordance with sanctioned plan approved by the competent authority and also within the site he is having title. The impugned order would clearly indicate that the petitioner was directed to voluntarily remove the structures constructed on the government land within 7 days on receipt of the notice, failing which the corporation would remove the same under Section 405 of the Act. If the construction is within the site he possesses title, then a notice under Section 406 of the Act is required to be given. In case of an encroachment, notice under Section 405 of the Act is sufficient, which does not contemplate calling for any explanation. Therefore, though the provision of law is not specifically mentioned on the top of the notice, as seen from the impugned order, it is purported to have been issued under the directions of this Court and it must be understood that it is a notice issued under Section 405 of the Act. 8. Simply because, on earlier occasion, the petitioner was granted occupancy certificate, that does not confer any right to say that he constructed the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan. If any violation is found on a subsequent date, the authority can initiate action in accordance with law. The oral assertion of the petitioner that he has not encroached into the government land, cannot be accepted because there is no proof, at this stage, to show that he made constructions within the area owned by him. Therefore, the respondents are at liberty to demolish such of constructions made contrary to the sanctioned plan, as mentioned in the impugned notice. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner under law. No costs. ________________ (K.C.BHANU, J.) 30.12.2011 DRK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 34691 OF 2011 Date: 30.12.2011