ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of plot No.55 in Sy.Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 11, Block No.10, Street No.14 situated at New Bharat Nagar Colony, Near Grammar High School, Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 07-02-2001, and that he had made construction of house consisting of one stilt + 2 upper floors therein and has been in enjoyment of the same.

3. Petitioner contends that the respondent authorities claim to have passed speaking order dated 16-09-2022 without issuing any notice much less show cause notice dated 12-08-2022 as mentioned at Reference No.4 of the impugned order in the name of one ‘Venkatesh’ and while mentioning the plot No.55 belonging to the petitioner.

4. Petitioner further contends that even the present impugned proceeding dated 15-04-2023 is not addressed to the petitioner and on the other hand is addressed ‘Venkatesh’ claiming that he having made an unauthorized construction in petitioner’s plot of land viz., plot No.55 and directing him to remove the same, which action it is contended as illegal.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that the authorities have caused a notice including speaking order served on petitioner’s son and as such, mere mention of wrong name in the impugned order, does not vitiate the aforesaid proceeding.

6. I have taken note of respective contentions urged.

7. Admittedly, petitioner’s name is Dali Venkata Subba Rao as per the sale deed under which he had purchased the subject plot bearing No.55 wherein a house is also existing with House No.2-6- -155/55 from his vendor. The existence of door number in respect of the house constructed on the aforesaid plot indicates the same is entered in the Municipal records. Thus, if only the authorities had caused proper verification, they would have known the fact of the subject property standing in the name of the petitioner, and thus, could not have issued the alleged notice and speaking order by showing the name of ‘Venkatesh’ at plot No.55 without even mentioning the door number thereagainst to claim the same as having been validly served on petitioner for enforcing the said orders.

8. Since, the impugned proceeding has been addressed to a wrong person by merely mentioning the plot number without even mentioning the door number of the existing building, this Court is of the view that the impugned order as issued cannot be sustained.

9. Accordingly, the impugned proceeding is set aside and the respondent authorities are at liberty to initiate proceedings afresh and taking further action strictly in accordance with law.

10. Subject to above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

No costs.

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.

___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 14.08.2024 Vsv