This order quashed a defective Section 636 notice issued during pending regularization proceedings under the Building Penalization Scheme.
Impugned notice dated 21.09.2010 under Section 636 set aside; liberty granted to approach regarding the rejection order dated 22.11.2014.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.23826 of 2010
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.
2. The original petitioner died and his legal representatives came on record.
3. It appears that there was a dilapidated house bearing H.No.1-2-56/57 and 58, Domalguda, Hyderabad, admeasuring 494.44 square yards. The first respondent granted permission on 01.10.2003 for construction of residential units and the same were completed by 2005. While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.901 dated 31.12.2007, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 31.01.2008, bringing the scheme for penalization of unauthorized structures and the petitioners submitted an on 31.03.2008 for application regularization of G-1 unit in the said residential complex. The respondents vide their letter dated 16.08.2008 sought additional documents and the balance fee demanded was also paid on
19.08.2009. No orders were passed on the said building penalization application. Though the submitted a on petitioners representation 14.06.2010, there was no response. While so, the respondents issued a notice under Section 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), on 21.09.2010 when the application of the petitioners under Building Penalization Scheme (BPS) was pending. Challenging the same, the present writ petition was filed.
4. A perusal of Section 636 notice dated 21.09.2001 reflects that the petitioner was running office in the premises No.1-2-56 to 58 at Varanasi Apartment, Street No.14, Domalguda, in deviation of the sanctioned plan and the petitioner was asked to remove the same.
5. Now, the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the application of the petitioner under BPS was rejected vide letter dated 22.11.2014. However, the impugned notice under Section 636 of the Act was issued when the said application was pending and the said notice ought not to have issued when the BPS application
was pending consideration.
6. In the circumstances, the impugned notice dated 21.09.2001 is set aside and liberty is given to the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings against the order of rejection passed by respondents 1 to 3 on 22.11.2014. If respondents 1 to 3 want to take any action against the unauthorized structures of the petitioners, they should issue appropriate notice under Section 452 of the Act and invite objections from the petitioners. Then only they can take further steps.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
________________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: December 15, 2014 BSB
19 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.23826 of 2010
Date: December 15, 2014
BSB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a notice issued under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 is valid when the petitioner's application for regularization under the Building Penalization Scheme was pend
Whether the authority must shift to issuing notice under Section 452 of the Act when regularization proceedings are ongoing.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Respondents 1 to 3
Respondents 4 and 5
A. Ramalingeswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
