Dismissed

Ghousia Begum v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC25 Mar 2022WP/13325/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a demolition notice. The petitioner argued her construction fell under a simplified registration scheme but the Court held it was on government or prohibited land. The notice was upheld as lawful following the show cause procedure. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No order to demolish the structure; Writ Petition dismissed.

Ghousia Begum Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY^{FIFTH DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO:^{13325 OF 2022}

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

GhousiaBegum,w/oSyedHaji,agedqqy-eglt,Occ:Housewife,R/oPlotNo'669/1 , M.G.Road, Patancheru,^{Sangareddy District.}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Greater Hyderabad^{MunicipalCorporation, Represented by its} Commissioner, Tank^{Bund Road, Hyderabad.}

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner,^{Circle No. 22, Greater Hyderabad.Municipal}

¶12

Coipordtioh Patancheru, Ramachandrapuram' Sangareddy District'

¶13

3 Smt.Kotla Neeraja, w/o^{Neelankanteswara Reddy,aged. 59yegrs,.Occ} Housewife, Rl/o H.No.^{18-145t5-2,Kamalanagar, Road No.5, Chaithanyapurl,} Siroornagbr, Ranga^{Reddy District, now residing at.Flat No 403'} rc.k.H aOn"uri'Hlanslon,^{Nethajinagar,Chaithanyapuri, Dilsukhnagar,} Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High courtmaybe} pleased to issue a writ order or direction^{more particularly one in the natureof writ} of mandamus mandamus^{declaringthe notice dated1 1 .03.2022issued by the} Respondent no 2^{U/s 636 of HMC act, 1955 as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and} direct not to demolish any^{structure over the petitioner's propertyi.e, All that Plot} bearing No.9/part^{in survey No. '1A and 24 admeasuring100 sq. yards equivalent} to 83.6 Sq.meters^{situated at chaitanya Nagar colony,Patancheru Townand} lr,4andal, SangareddY District.

¶16

A NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct} the Respondent^{No. 2 not to demolishany structure overthe petitioner's property}

¶18

¶19

¶20

i.e., All that Plot bearing No. 9/part in Survey No. 1A and 2A admeasuring^.100 Sq.yards equivalent to 83.6 Sq.meters situated at Chaitanya Nagar Colony, Patancheru Town & Mandal, Sangareddy District.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. D. MADHAVA RAO

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondent No's. 1 to 2: SRl. SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDy (sc FoR GHMC)

¶23

counsel for the Respondent No.3: NONE APPEARED

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALTTHA KANNEGANTI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.13325 of 2022

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ petition is fi1ed questioning the notice dated^{I 1.03 .2022} issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 636 of^HMC Act,^{1955 as} illegal, unjust and arbitrary and direct not to demolish^{any structure} over the petitioner's propefiy i.e., plot bearing^{No.9/partin survey} No.1A and 24' admeasuring 100 Sq.yards equivalent^{to 83.6 Sq.meters} situated at Chaitanya Nagar colony, Patancheru Town^{and Mandal,} Sanga Reddy District.

¶29

Sri D.Madhava Rao, leamed counsel for the^{petitionersubmits} that the petitioner is aggrieved by the^notice dated^{1 1.03,2022directing} her to remove the unauthorised construction within 24^{hours,failing} which the same will be removed depafimentally^{as per the provisions of} the HMC Act.

¶30

It is fufther submitted that the petitioner is owner of the subject plot, which she has purchased by way of registered sale deed vide document No.23267 of 2015 dated 23.12.2015 and^{thentl.re petitioner}

w P.No.ll325 of2022

had constmcted a temporary tin shed in her plot admeasuling 100 Sq.yards.

¶35

It is further submitted that basing on the representation rnade by the oIficia1 respondents and orders passed by this Courl in rvrit petition No. 1 101 of 2022, notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 636 of HMC Act and the petitioner case falls undel Section 7(2) of the TS b-PASS Act and as per the same, the petitioner has to pay only registered online token amount of Rs.1/- and duly self certifoing his title, size of the plot and floors, it sha1l also not require a cornpletion ceftificate or occupancy certificate.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner fur1her submitted that respondents cannot say that the construction made by the petitioner is an unauthorized and even as per the TS b-PASS Act, there is no provision, which says about any violation of the plan. It only says that petitioner has to register it with a token amount of Rs.1/-. It is turther submitted that petitionel has not constructed in 100 square yards and she constructed only in 75 square yards, hence, the case of the petitionel falls under Section 7(2) of TS b-PASS Act and hence, the

w.P.No.l3325 of:022

1 1

I It

learned counsel submitted that the^{respondentwithoutconducting} proper enquiry, issued notice under^{Section 636 of the HMC Act.}

¶42

Mr. Sampath^{PrabhakarReddy, learned StandingCounsel} appearing on behalf of^{respondentCorporation submitted that as per the} sale deed, the plot size is¹⁰⁰ square^{yards and she has to makean} application under Section 7(3) of^{the TS b-PASS Act and in case} permission is not granted by the authorities^{within 2i days, the} petitioner is permitted to^{proceed with the construction. He submitted} that in this case, the^{petitionerhas not made any online application} under Section 7(3) of the^{Act and raisesthe unauthorized structures, it} becomes il legal construction.

¶43

'7. Learned Standing Counsel fur1her submitted that in view of the orders passed by this Court^{in writ petition No.1101 of 2022, they have} issued show cause notice and^{afterconsidering the reply submittedby} the petitioner, the impugned^{ordersdated11.03.2022 waspassedunder} Section 636 of the HMC Act.^{It is further submitted that thereis no} illegality in the impugned order,^{which warrants interference of this} Court under Article 226 of^{the Constitution of India'}

¶44

w.l'\o.13-125 ot :0:: 4

¶45

¶46

On perusal of the irnpugned order dated 11.03.2022 shows that the respondents have followed the procedure by issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner has also submitted reply. Basing on the reply, the impugned order was passed. Except relying on Section 7(2) of Ts b-PASS Act, the petitioner has not made out any other ground to show that he has not raised any house illegally. Admittedly, the sale deed of the petitioner is in respect of r00 square yards and as per Section 7(2) of TS b-pASS Act, it is very ciear that any plot bigger than 75 sq yards cannot be split for this purpose or this provision cannot be misused for taking up constructions in Government or prohibited or disputed land and action as prescribed shall be initiated for violations noticed. In view of the sarne the petitioner cannot seek any relief from this court. Hence, this court finds no reason to interfere with the order impugned.

¶47

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

To,

¶49

1 One CC to SRl. D. MADHAVA RAO Advocate tOpUCl

¶50

2 One CC to SRl. SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY(SC FOR GHMC) Advocate loPUcl

¶51

Two CD Copies 4. One Spare Copy

SW^{(^.)x}

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2510312022

ORDER WP.No.13325 of 2022

¶58

^f , :L4 Ai
') .s
I
o*
llJ
s
zc
<br>t i,9lt{ 9t

¶59

DISMISSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COST

¶60

'Yi

Ghousia Begum v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghousia Begum v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

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

Mr. Rakesh Tiwari Vs State of Telangana and 4 Others

V.Sudhakar Vs State of Telangana and 3 others

Sagarla Pavan Vs The State of Telangana

S.Anand Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Somidi. Venu Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Vasam Thulasamma Vs The State of Telangana and Another