C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) SINCE these writ petitions are interconnected they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience parties would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in W. P. No. 19020 of 2004.

( 2 ) OWNER of the premises bearing h. No. 5-7-523/24-land2 at Nampally Dargah initially filed W. P. No. 19020 of 2004 questioning the proceedings No. 56/86 dated 4-10-2004 of the Commissioner, Municipal corporation of Hyderabad (first respondent), issued under Section 636 of the Hyderabad municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (the Act), to remove the constructions made by her, and later amended the prayer as one to set aside the proceedings dated 1/2-7-2004 of the first respondent in Lr. No. F/o/97/tpsho/ 2004-2362. Petitioner in W. P. No. 2673 of 2005 got himself impleaded as 2nd respondent in that writ petition subsequently.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that she, after complying with the necessary formalities, applied for construction of a commercial complex in her premises bearing H. No. 5-7-523/24-1and2 and was accorded permission by the first respondent vide permit No. 158/15740 dated 20-7-1998 for construction of ground, 1st and 2nd floors and so she constructed the building as per the plan. Thereafter, on 20-1-2004 she sought permission for construction of 3rd and 4th floors after paying the prescribed fee. As she did not get any communication from the first respondent either granting or refusing permission within the prescribed time, she, after issuing a notice to the first respondent, commenced construction on 12. 5. 2004 as per the plan submitted by her. On 22-6-2004, first respondent issued a notice under Section 461 of the Act asking her to stop the construction being carried on by her for which she sent a reply on 26-6-2004. But, on 20-9-2004, first respondent issued notice to her under section 452 of the Act to explain why action under Section 452 (2) of the Act cannot be taken for her unauthorized laying of slab for 2nd and 3rd floors over the existing ground and 1st floors, in violation of g. O. Ms. No. 423 M. A. , dated 11-7-1998 and for her violating Sections 428 and 433 of the Act, for which she sent a reply on 24-9-2004 explaining the reasons and intimating that she did not violate the sanctioned plan or the Rules and Regulations.

( 4 ) THE case of the first respondent is that petitioner who got regularized the building consisting of ground plus two floors vide Permit No. 158 dated 20-7-1998, had on 20-1-2004 submitted an application with plan for construction of 3rd and 4th floors, without paying necessary fees. Since all the staff concerned were busy with General elections and election duties, immediate action could not be taken on the said application of the petitioner. Significantly, petitioner did not send the fees even with the notice dated 12-5-2004, sent by her. Since total area of the plot of the petitioner is 180 sq. meters only, height of the building cannot exceed 10 meters as per g. O. Ms. No. 423 M. A. , dated 31-7-1998 and so petitioner is not at liberty to proceed with construction of structures above 10 meters from the ground level. For availing the benefit of Section 437 of the Act, plan submitted by the petitioner should be in accordance with the building byelaws and regulations and Zonal Regulations in force and should also comply with all the formalities. Since the petitioner did not pay the fees and since construction of 3rd and 4th floors is not permissible in the site belonging to the petitioner, petitioner is not entitled to the protection claimed by her under Section 437 of the Act and so notice under Section 461 of the Act was given to her on 22-6-2004 to stop construction and later notice under Section 452 of the Act, to show-cause why the unauthorized construction made cannot be removed was given to the petitioner.

( 5 ) THE contention of the second respondent, who filed W. P. No. 2673 of 2005 questioning the construction being made by the petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document