The impugned notice issued by GHMC was set aside as it was found to be illegal and arbitrary for not following the due procedure laid down under the law.

JUDGMENT :

Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellants (Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation) (GHMC) being aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2021 passed in W.P.No.12898 of 2021.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, Smt. Ghousiya Begum, came up before the learned Single Judge being aggrieved by the notice dated 01.06.2021 issued under Section 456 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, “the GHMC Act”), and challenging the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the GHMC Act as well as the Municipal Corporation Building Bylaws, 1981. The facts, as reflected from the writ petition, reveal that Smt. Fatima Bee, mother of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing open plot No.422, admeasuring 133 square yards situated at Lakshmi Narasimha Nagar, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad. She has acquired the said property by virtue of a patta certificate dated 12.06.1981 issued by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh. During her lifetime, she has executed a gift settlement deed dated 19.07.1996 in favour of her daughter i.e., the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. By virtue of the aforesaid gift settlement deed, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner became the titleholder of the property. She has constructed a residential house and got it assessed in her name. A municipal number was also assigned i.e., 4-3-237/422 and the respondent No.1/writ petitioner has been in possession of the subject property since 12.06.1981. There was a rival claim in respect of the same property and in those circumstances, as the respondent No.4 in the writ petition, Smt. Bodi Saritha, started interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner filed a civil suit i.e., O.S.No.482 of 2017 before the learned V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the same is pending. There is an order of status quo granted by the trial Court, which is still pending. It is pertinent to note that Smt. Bodi Saritha also preferred a civil suit i.e., O.S.No.98 of 2018 for eviction and recovery of rents and damages. Both the suits are pending before the trial Court. In O.S.No.98 of 2018, one interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.12 of 2018 was filed by Smt. Bodi Saritha seeking deposit of arrears of rent and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that prima facie there was no evidence to show that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was a tenant of Smt. Bodi Saritha. The facts further reveal that Smt. Bodi Saritha approached the GHMC and some report was obtained in the matter and based upon the report, the GHMC issued directions for demolition of the house. In those circumstances, the writ petition was preferred before this Court.

3. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:- (paragraphs 8 and 9) :-

“8. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

(i) The rival submissions and the material available on record would reveal that the petitioner herein is claiming right over the subject plot under a gift settlement deed dated 19.07.1996 executed by her mother in her favour. According to her, the subject plot bearing No.422, admeasuring 133 square yards situated at Lakshmi Narasimha Nagar, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad, was acquired by her mother, Smt. Fatima Bee, by virtue of a Patta Certificate, dated 12.06.1981 issued by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter, the petitioner herein had constructed a residential house and got the same assessed. She has been paying property tax. Thus, according to the petitioner, she and her mother have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject plot since last 42 years. Whereas, according to respondent No.4, she is claiming right over t