THE HONL’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15767 OF 2011 Dated: 04.07.2011 Between : 1. Arifulla Khan and 7 others. .. Petitioners And 1. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad., and 2 others. .. Respondents THE HONL’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15767 OF 2011 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in demolishing a part of the premises bearing No.12- 12-230/A situated at Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad without any notice and without following due process of law is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners also seek a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the premises to its original condition. It is not in dispute that the 1st petitioner is the tenant of the 3rd respondent – A.P. Wakf Board in respect of the premises bearing No.12-12-230/A situated at Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad. It is stated that the 1st petitioner along with petitioners 2 to 8 has been in possession and enjoyment of the said premises for the past 20 years by paying rents regularly to the 3rd respondent. As there was a need to change the course of the drainage line so as to connect it with the main drainage line that runs along the main road, the 1st petitioner gave a representation dated 24.2.2011 and pursuant thereto the 3rd respondent by order dated 28.03.2011 granted permission to divert the drainage line and also to effect minor repairs to the kitchen and verandah of the petitioners in question. It is pleaded that while the 1st petitioner was proceeding with the drainage work as well as the repairs to the building in terms of the permission, dated 28.03.2011, the Officials of GHMC along with staff and the concerned Inspector of the 3rd respondent Wakf Board came to the premises on 8.6.2011 and demolished the bathroom, toilet, kitchen, apart from ceiling of two rooms and verandah. Claiming that the petitioners are left with only 3 rooms without any kitchen and bathroom and that the action of the respondents in demolishing the structures without following due process of law is arbitrary and illegal, the present writ petition has been filed. It is alleged that the managing committee of the Mosque by name Masjif-E-Aqsa to which the house in occupation of the petitioners is attached had unauthorisedly drawn about Rs.36,00,000/- from the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector out of the compensation awarded to the property acquired for road-widening and the said Committee had also constructed a building without permission of the Municipal Corporation and the Wakf Board. The petitioner No.8 filed complaints bringing to the notice of the Wakf Board the said illegal activities of the Mosque Committee. She also filed W.P.No.12870 of 2010 in this Court and by order dated 9.6.2010 made in WPMP.No.16215 of 2010 this Court recorded the statement of the counsel for the Wakf Board that the term of the said Committee was not going to be extended and that it shall be open to the Wakf Board to take over the Mosque under its direct management. It is alleged that on account of the said proceedings initiated by the petitioner No.8, the Ex. Committee Members of the Mosque bore grudge against the petitioners and influenced the 3rd respondent to take steps for demolition of the house in occupation of the petitioners high-handedly. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation – it is stated that the 3rd respondent by letter dated 11.5.2011 had requested to take up demolition of the illegal constructions being made by the 1st petitioner in the premises in question. In response to the said letter, the 3rd respondent was informed that the Corporation cannot take up any demolition work in the properties of the 3rd respondent and it can only provide assistance by providing men and material. Subsequently the 3rd respondent by letter dated 7.6.2011 requested the Corporation to attend demolition work on 8.6.2011 and accordingly the Corporation had provided men and material for taking up demolition of the alleged illegal constructions within the Wakf premises. While stating that the 3rd respondent alone is competent to grant permission for construction in Wakf premises and also to take up demolition in respect of illegal constructions therein, it is contended that the allegations made by the petitioners against the Corporation are false and without any basis. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, it is contended that whereas the 1st petitioner was granted permission only for minor repairs, the petitioners had dumped huge construction material and started construction on a huge level. Therefore the Corporation was requested to demolish the said illegal constructions except to the extent covered by permission granted by the Wakf Board. It is also contended that the demolition was taken up in order to protect the Wakf property and to restrain the petitioners from changing the character of the property and it is in the interest of the institution. One Shaik Mustaq who claims to be Musalli of Masjif-E-Aqsa situated at Seethaphalmandi got himself impleaded as respondent No.4 and filed a counter-affidavit supporting the version of the 3rd respondent. It is also contended that in spite of the fact that the tenancy of the 1st petitioner expired long back, he continued in possession of the Wakf property illegally and moreover made unauthorised constructions. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is not in dispute that the 1st petitioner is the tenant of the premises in question which admittedly belongs to the 3rd respondent. It is also not in dispute that a major portion of the said premises was demolished on 8.6.2011. Though it was contended by the 3rd respondent that the demolition was effected by the Corporation, the said plea was denied by the Corporation and in the counter-affidavit it was made clear that the Corporation had provided only men and material to the 3rd respondent and the demolition was taken up by the 3rd respondent itself. It was also made clear in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation that the 3rd respondent alone was competent either to issue permission for construction in the Wakf property or for demolition of the illegal constructions, if any. The material placed before this Court shows that the 3rd respondent by its letter dated 7.6.2011 while acknowledging the Corporation’s letter dated 20.05.2011 requested the Corporation to provide men and material on 8.6.2011 for demolition of the alleged illegal structures in premises No.12-12-230/A. Thus it is clear that the demolition was carried out on 8.6.2011 by the 3rd respondent, of course with the assistance of the staff of the Corporation. Though the 3rd respondent sought to contend that the petitioners were proceeding with construction on a huge level contrary to the permission dated 28.03.2011 granted for minor repairs, admittedly the 3rd respondent did not issue any notice to the petitioners nor an opportunity was given to them to explain the alleged illegal constructions. In fact, the specific case of the petitioners is that except effecting minor repairs and diversion of drainage line as permitted by the 3rd respondent, no major constructions were carried out in the premises in question. Even assuming that it came to the notice of the 3rd respondent that the petitioners were making construction in contravention of the permission dated 28.03.2011, the 3rd respondent cannot straightaway resort to demolition without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to make their representation against the proposed action. Since the impugned demolition was not preceded by any such notice, on the face of it the 3rd respondent’s action is arbitrary, illegal apart from being violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice. In the light of the above conclusion, the question that arises for consideration is; what is the relief that can be granted to the petitioners. It is true that normally this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not grant monetary relief or directions for restoration of status quo ante since the same are in the nature of enforcing a civil liability. However it is a well-settled principle that it is always open to this Court to issue appropriate directions as may be necessary to suit the exigencies of the case. As held above, this is a case where the action of the 3rd respondent in straightaway demolishing a major portion of the residential premises in occupation of the petitioners is ex facie illegal and the GHMC cannot be made responsible in any manner whatsoever for the same. The material available on record shows that the impugned demolition rendered the premises in question unsuitable for habitation. Therefore the 3rd respondent is bound to restore the premises to its original condition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to restore with its own costs the constructions which were demolished illegally, so as to make the premises in question habitable. Such exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 04.07.2011 gbs