Authorities must adhere to procedural fairness and cannot act arbitrarily when authorized actions affect property ownership, especially when statutory appeals are pending.

ORDER :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in issuing Notice, dated 20.02.2015, vide No.S-III/TPS/C-X/GHMC/2015 under Section 452 (1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the HMC Act, 1955’) and the further proceedings initiated through notice, dated 04.03.2015, issued under Section 636 of the Act, to demolish/remove the Pent House of premises bearing No.8-2-293/82/J- III/443/A/16, Orange Homes Impression, Road No.86, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri B.Venkat Rama Rao, learned Counsel for petitioner, Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Ponnam Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that one Surendra Kumar Reddy, owner of premises bearing Door No.8-2- 293/82/J-III on Plot No.443-A-16-111 in Sy.No.403/1 (Old), 120 (new) of Shaikpet Village, has obtained permission for construction of a residential building of Ground + two upper floors, vide Permit No. 118/94/2005, but has constructed Ground + three upper floors with cellar and sold the portions in the ground and two upper floors and retained the third floor (pent house) with built-up area of 2414 sq. ft. with 166.5 sq. yards undivided share (hereinafter “the subject property”); that he availed a loan from respondent No.4-Bank by mortgaging the subject property, however, as he committed defaulted in repayment, respondent No.4-Bank conducted an e-auction on 28.11.2013, in which the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder and after payment of the entire sale consideration of Rs.61,00,000/-, a Sale Certificate dated 09.01.2014 was issued in her favour and physical possession was delivered and that the petitioner also paid property tax for the year 2014-15.

3.1. While so, on 20.02.2015, a notice under Section 452 (1) of the HMC Act, 1955 was served on the petitioner stating that the subject property was not covered by the sanctioned plan and that the BPS application submitted by the previous owner-Surendra Kumar Reddy had been rejected because of non-payment of the balance penalization fee and as such, the petitioner was called upon to show cause why the unauthorized structure, i.e., Pent house should not be demolished. The petitioner submitted replies on 24.02.2015 and 02.03.2015 stating that she was a bona fide e-auction purchaser and was unaware of the pendency or rejection of the earlier BPS application, nevertheless, respondent No.1 issued a further notice dated 04.03.2015 under Section 636 of the HMC Act directing removal of the alleged unauthorised construction. The petitioner again sought time through her reply dated 05.03.2015.

3.2. Aggrieved by rejection of BPS application of her predecessor-in- title, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 16.03.2015, under Rule 11 of the A.P. Regulation and Penalization of Unauthorizedly Constructed Buildings and Buildings constructed in deviation of the Sanctioned Plan Rules, 2007, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2007’) before the Appellate Committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 13.05.2014 and the same is pending for adjudication, and as the said G.O. does not provide for interim protection against demolition during pendency of the appeal, she approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 issu