without considering the explanation and request for regularization for the demand notice in respect of un- authorized construction, no demolishion shall be made


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

W.P. NO. 8085 OF 2013


DATED: 19TH MARCH, 2013

Between :

Mohammed Arif


Petitioner

And

The Greater Municipal Corporation,
Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund
Hyderabad and another

Respondents


 ORDER:


          This writ petition is being disposed of with the consent of Sri Md. Zia-ul-Haque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Nagesh Bheemapaka, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents.
          Though the petitioner has challenged the notice No.G-79/UC/ACP6/58/GHMC/2012 dated 24.12.2012 issued under Sec.452(1) and 461(1) of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, he seeks a limited relief at the hearing of the writ petition to direct the first respondent to pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner within a time frame and protect his interest till orders are passed thereon.
          The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of property of the premises bearing municipal No. 8-1-164/184, situated in Sy.No.166, Mailardevpally village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. He has constructed compound wall and a shed on the said land unauthorisedly without obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation. He is running iron industries in the said premises. Notice under Sec. 452(1) and 461(1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act was, therefore, issued to the petitioner on 24.12.2012 calling upon him to submit explanation as to why the unauthorized construction should not be removed. The petitioner states that he has submitted explanation on 14.3.2013. 
          The petitioner does not deny that he has made the construction unauthorisedly. He states that he has made a request for regularization of the construction in terms of Sec. 455(AA) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act.
          Therefore, his grievance is that his explanation is liable to be considered and until then the respondents are not entitled to demolish the construction. He, therefore, seeks a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on the said representation and until then to safeguard and protect his interest.
          As can be seen from the aforesaid notice, it is evident that the petitioner has given explanation to the show cause notice and, therefore, in all fairness, the respondents are liable to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sri Nagesh Bheemapaka, learned Standing Counsel, fairly submits that he has no objection to issue the direction as sought for by the petitioner for consideration of the explanation submitted by him.
          In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the first respondent shall consider the request made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until orders are passed, the respondents shall not demolish the construction made by the petitioner, pursuant to the notice dated 24.12.2012. No order as to costs.


__________________

Justice Noushad Ali

March 19, 2010
MAS

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.