Common Order:

1. Both these Writ Petitions are filed by the very same petitioner over the very same house and the dispute against the respondents is in respect of the proceedings arising out of Section 459 of the GHMC Act, 1955, as such, both the Writ Petitions are heard and decided by the common order.

2. W.P.No.21653 of 2013 is filed seeking to grant the following relief:

               “Issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned notice No.338/7/4/D/ACP/TPS/C8/GHMC/2012, dated 12.07.2013 issued to the petitioner for the premises bearing H.No.4-7-338, Near Victory Play Ground, Esamiah Bazaar, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and consequently permit the petitioner to repair the damaged portion of the building walls within 15 days after the insistence rain stops and pass such other order….”

3. W.P.No.26390 of 2013 is filed seeking to grant the following relief:

               “Issue Writ or Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned notice Nos.337 to 339/7/4/ACP/TPS/C8/ GHMC/2013, dated 31.07.2013 pertaining to the premises bearing H.Nos.4-7-337 to 339, Near Victory Play Ground, Esamia Bazaar, Hyderabad, belonging to the petitioner addressed to the 3 rd Respondent by the respondent No.1, as illegal. capricious and arbitrary exercise of powers under section 459 of GHMC Act and violates Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and consequently permit the petitioner to repair the damaged portion of the building walls and compound walls inside and outside of the said premises, without the intervention of the respondent Nos.3 to 7 herein and pass such other order.”

4. Heard Ms.G. Sudha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Yenuka Nishitha Manvi, learned counsel appearing Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, in both the Writ Petitions. Perused the record.

5. Since W.P.No.26390 of 2013 is the comprehensive Writ Petition, the same is taken as a lead case and the contentions put-forth in the said writ petition are dealt as hereunder:

               The brief assertion of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 inherited the premises bearing H.Nos.4-7-337 to 339, near Victory Play Ground, Esamia Bazaar, Hyderabad, which is a dwelling unit constructed by his grandfather. It is submitted that petitioners’ family has been residing in the said premises for a long time, and when the building became old, they have constructed a new building and residing therein along with family members.

6. It is further submitted that while the matter stood thus, respondent Nos.1 and 2, without conducting any proper enquiry, basing on the complaint made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, had issued notices bearing No.337 to 339/7/4/ACP/TPS/C8/GHMC/2013, dated 31.07.2013 to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 contemplating to remove the said houses, which exclusively belong to the petitioner and directed to file objections within three days, and if the objections are not filed within such period and since the building is in a dilapidated condition, appropriate action would be initiated for demolition of the same.

7. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the said impugned notices in both the Writ Petitions have been issued by respondent No.1 at the behest of the 3rd and 4th respondents, who do not have right over the petitioners’ property, and more so, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not followed the procedure contemplated under Sections 456 and 459 of the GHMC Act, 1955, and assailing the said notices, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petitions.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Section 459 of GHMC Act, 1955, envisages that respondent Nos.1 and 2 should conduct enquiry by issuing show-cause notice to the owners/occupiers by giving a reasonable time of seven (7) days and once explanation is filed within the said stipulated time the respondent authorities are bound to consider the same by conducting an enquiry by physically inspecting the said premises and upon physical verification only, appropriate proceedings under Section 456 of GHMC Act, 1955 are to be issued.

9. Learned counsel further contends that the said procedure is not followed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the impugned notice dated 12.07.2013 issued to the petitioner No.1, is solely at the behest of respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are in no way concerned with the subject property and who are rival claimants. In that view of the matter, petitioner No.1 filed W.P.No.21653 of 2013, wherein this Court has granted interim protection vide order dated 23.07.2013 in WPMP No.26522 of 2013. Though the petitioners submitted their explanation and though there was interim protection in their favour, the respondent authorities have issued impugned notice dated 31.07.2013 to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.P.No.26390 of 2013, stating that the subject building is in dilapidated condition and directed them to vacate the said premises, and learned counsel would further contend that so as to entitle the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to claim right over the said premises, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 authorities, who are in hand in glove with them, issued the impugned notices tp respondent Nos.3 and 4.

10. As seen from the impugned notices, evidently, the impugned show cause notices are issued under Section 459 of GHMC Act, 1955 and under the provisions of the said Act, after issuing a Show-Cause Notice, the respondent authorities should consider the explanations submitted by the petitioners, if any, and conduct a preliminary enquiry. Thereafter only, the competent authority is required to pass appropriate orders, and consequent thereto after determination that the building is in dilapidated condition, the authority has to issue directions for removal under the provisions of Section 456 of the GHMC Act, 1955. Admittedly, the impugned notices were issued way back in the year 2013, and more than 13 years have elapsed and the building survived for all these years.

11. The learned Standing Counsel for GHMC filed counter stating that the said building is in dilapidated condition, but has not placed before this Court any subsequent developments as to the status of the building and whether any subsequent action has been taken.

12. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the building is still in good condition and to controvert the same, the learned Standing Counsel has not placed any status report as to the condition of the building. In the absence of any report, the survival of the subject building as on today would demonstrate the strength of that building and amply prove that the building is not in dilapidated condition. That being so, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, respondent No.2 is directed, once again, to conduct a physical inspection of the subject premises, call for a report from the competent authorities/Engineer of the concerned Department to verify the structural stability of the building by personally visiting the premises, and thereupon issue notices to the petitioner under Section 459 of the GHMC Act, conduct an enquiry, determine the issue in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, and take further recourse by passing a reasoned order, duly following the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955. The impugned notices are quashed and set aside.

13. With the aforesaid directions, these Writ Petitions are allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.