Demolition proceedings of regularized structures must comply with due process, and prior regularization must be acknowledged in actions taken by municipal authorities.

ORDER :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Order No.647/ACP/TPS/Cir-IX/CZ/GHMC, dated 01.05.2015, of respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the regularization scheme and to set aside the same and consequently, to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2-Corporation not to demolish the petitioner’ house in Ground Floor of Laxmi Arcade bearing Municipal No.2-2-647/77/F, Srinivasanagar Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject flat’).

2. Heard Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioner, Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though, Sri E.Shiva Kumar, learned Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, did not appear before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner purchased a land admeasuring 40 square yards under registered sale deed No.796/1995, dated 07.03.1995, and subsequently entered into agreement with the builder on 29.12.1995 for construction of a flat; that the subject flat was constructed in stilt floor of Laxmi Arcade; and that the same was regularized vide Permit No.171/17031, dated 29.05.1998. He further submitted that one K.Ramadevi and two others filed W.P.No.24463 of 2001 and the same was disposed of with a direction to respondents therein to consider the representation dated 05.08.2001, within a period of 4 weeks and thereafter, contempt was filed and the same was closed, since the petitioner's flat was regularized. He further submitted that petitioner has filed a suit vide O.S.No.3523 of 2002, on the file of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for injunction and in the said suit, respondent Nos.1 and 2-Corporation filed the written statement stating that petitioner got regularized the subject flat by playing fraud, however, the said suit was decreed by judgment dated 26.04.2004.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2- Corporation issued proceedings vide Lr.No.647/77/F/2/2/02/08, dated 10.07.2008 to the developer for demolition of flat by revoking Permit No.462/20, dated 30.06.1994, under Section 450 of GHMC ACT , 1955; that petitioner filed W.P.No.14997 of 2008, challenging the proceedings dated 10.07.2008, whereas one T.Ramalingeswara Sharma filed Writ Petition vide Writ Petition No.745 of 2008, challenging the action of respondents in not cancelling the regularization of the petitioner’s flat, vide permit No.171/17031, dated 29.05.1998; that both the said Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 04.08.2014, setting aside the proceedings dated 10.07.2008, with liberty to respondents' corporation to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, after duly considering the explanation of the petitioner, in accordance with the procedure laid down under GHMC ACT ; and that respondent No.2, in compliance of the said common Order, issued show cause notice dated 15.12.2014, under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of HMC Act, 1955, to the petitioner; that petitioner submitted her explanation dated 07.04.2015, however, respondent No.2 issued impugned proceedings dated 01.05.2015, mechanically, by rejecting the reply submitted by the petitioner. He further submitted that subject flat was regularized in the year 1998 as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.243, MA, dated 22.05.1996 and the impugned proceedings were issued, about 17 years after regularization, without referring to the said G.O. He further submitted that petitioner has been paying house property tax from the date of construction in the year 1996 and that the subject