Challa Dhanalakshmi, v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI Writ Petition No.41991 of 2015 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief/s: '...to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly a one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the petitioner's building construction in Plot No.619, Sy.No.44/1 situated at Mathrusri Cooperative House Building Society, Miuyapur village, Serilingampally Circle, Ranga Reddy District without issuing any notice and opportunity to the petitioner and without following due process of law as been arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable and in gross violation of Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from the gross violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the petitioner's building constriction in Plot NO.619, Sy.no.44/1 situated at mathrusri Cooperative House Building Society, Miyapur village,, Serilingampally Circle, Ranga Reddy District.'

[Reproduced verbatim]

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to

3. I have perused the material record.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he had constructed a residential building in plot no.619, Sy.No.44/1 situate at Miyapur after obtaining due permission and on payment of necessary fee as required by the rules and regulations of the 1st respondent Corporation and that without following the procedure established by law and without giving even a notice, the respondents are trying to demolish the building of the petitioner so constructed in the said plot and that, therefore, he is aggrieved and obliged to file the writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 22.12.2015 the authorities of the respondents and their subordinates without intimation and without giving notice had directed their workers to demolish the property of the petitioner and that unless orders as prayed for are granted, the petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable loss.

5. The learned Standing Counsel fairly concedes that the respondents are not going to take any coercive action against the property of the petitioner except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if, by recording the said submissions the writ petition is disposed of with appropriate directions, the ends of justice would be met.

7. Recording the submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the constructions made by the petitioner in the subject property except in strict accordance with the procedure established by law. However, it is made clear that the writ petitioner shall proceed with the further constructions in the subject property as per the sanctioned plan only and without making any deviations. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in the writ petition shall stand closed. __________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J 23.12.2015 Vjl