Partly allowed

Smt.Madala Udaya Lakshmi v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its

Telangana HC2 Jun 2010WP/12304/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a notice under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, issued for unauthorized construction. The High Court quashed the notice due to lack of prior service of the underlying Section 452 notice, directing the petitioner to object within two weeks. The draft order appears cut off.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice under Section 636 quashed; petitioner directed to submit objections to Section 452 notice within two weeks; Section 636 notice to revive if objections not filed.

Smt.Madala Udaya Lakshmi Vs Greater… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12304 OF 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard Sri Ravindra Bharati, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt Kalpana Ekbote, Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. At their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶4

The petitioner claims to have purchased flat No.303 in the fourth floor of ‘Sri Sainidhi Residency’ admeasuring 750 sq. feet, open terrace of 338 sq. feet, and a parking place in the stilt floor, along with proportionate undivided share of land admeasuring 25 sq. yards out of 386 sq. yards, in premises bearing No.8-3-966/7, plot No.4 situated at Nagarjunanagar Colony, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad, under registered sale deed dated 24.05.2010. It is his case that the said flat was initially constructed as a pent house but was later regularized vide permit No.164/16339 of 1998 as per G.O.Ms.No.356, dated 17.12.1997. He states that, in the open terrace portion, there was a temporary shed to which he is said to have carried out repairs by putting glass with aluminum frame. While matters stood thus, one of the flat owners is said to have lodged a complaint resulting in the impugned notice, under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) being issued, on 31.05.2010 whereby the petitioner was called upon to remove the alleged unauthorized constructions/additions to his flat within 24 hours.

¶5

Sri Ravindra Bharati, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the notice under Section 636 of the Act was not preceded by a notice under Section 452 of the Act.

¶6

Smt Kalpana Ekbote, Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, would fairly state that while the notice, under Section 452 of the Act, was issued, it was served not on the petitioner but on his servant.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel has made available a copy of the notice under Section 452 of the Act to Sri Ravindra Bharati, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, who fairly states that it would suffice if this Court were to grant time to the petitioner to submit his objections thereto.

¶8

In such circumstances, the impugned notice under Section 636 of the Act is quashed. The petitioner shall, within two weeks from today, submit his objections to the notice under Section 452 of the Act. The respondents shall consider the said objections and, thereafter, take action in accordance with law. It is made clear that, in case, the objections are not filed within the aforesaid period of two weeks, the notice under Section 636 of the Act would revive and it would be open to the respondents to take further action in accordance with law.

¶9

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶10

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

¶11

Date:02.06.2010 Note:Furnish copy within one week. bo Usd

Smt.Madala Udaya Lakshmi v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Madala Udaya Lakshmi v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abeda Begum Saheba Vs Greater Hydrebad Municipal Coproration

Sri. M. Satyanarayana Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Shaheda Begum, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

A.Hanmanth Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh,rep.by its PRincipal

Gram Panchayat, Pathapatnam Vs Karri Varalaxmi

Suchir India Developers (P) Ltd, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal