Smt. K. Maruthi Devi

IN THE COURT OF VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERBAD

Dated This The 28 th day of October, 2016.

Present: SMT. K.Maruthi Devi,

VI Junior Civil Judge

O.S.No.2509 of 2015

Between:

1. Sri Ganesh Mal Suthar, S/o. Sri Chunnilal Ji, Aged : 31 years, occ : Business

2. Smt. Vijetha, W/o. Sri Ganesh Mal Suthar, Aged : 28 years, Occ : House wife,

Both are R/o. 5-1-221/1, Jambagh, Hyderabad.

.......Plaintiff

AND

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

Rep. by its Commissioner,

Having its head office at Municipal complex,

Tank Bund, Hyderabad. ...Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

K.Somraj, Advocate for the plaintiffs/plaintiffs and of G.Gopala Chary

Standing Counsel for GHMC and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by plaintiff seeking to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant corporation, its employees, subordinates, workmen or any other person or persons claiming through or acting under it from interfering in any manner or demolishing any part of the schedule property either in whole or in part.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

plaintiff submitted that plaintiff no.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of house in premises bearing No. 5-1-221/1, (Corresponding to part of Old MCH No.5-1-221), admeasuring 195 sq.yds (out of 390 sq.yds) situated at Jambagh, Hyderabad purchased through registered sale deed

2 O.S.NO.2509/15

described as schedule A property and plaintiff no.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of house property in premises bearing No. 5-1-221/1, (corresponding to part of Old MCH No.5-1-221), admeasuring 195 sq.yds (out of 390 sq.yds) situated at Jambagh, Hyderabad purchased through registered sale deed described as schedule B property. Since then the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment without interruption of any person.

3. The plaintiffs with an intention to develop the properties have approached the defendant corporation and made separate applications by submitting required plans and all other necessary relevant documents and also paid necessary permit fees. The defendant officials insisted the plaintiffs to surrender a portion of land from the schedule properties accordingly the plaintiffs surrendered the land for road widening free of costs. Thereafter the defendant officials after due scrutiny and verification of the application have granted two separate permission for construction of ground and first floor for residential purpose vide permit no.43042/DC/CZ/Cir-8/2015 dt.24.06.2015 in schedule A, permit no.43046/DC/CZ/Cir-8/2015 dt.24.6.2015 in schedule B property.

4.After receiving the sanctioned plan, the plaintiffs proceeded with the construction intimating the defendant corporation orally about the commencement of construction. The said construction work is in progress.

Further the defendant officials have inspected the suit construction and never raised any objection of any kind having satisfied with the construction work. The construction of the plaintiff is within four boundaries of the suit premises and the same is made with hard earned money and the plaintiff have not made any encroachment of any other's property. The suit construction is not causing any inconvenience, disturbance or not posing any danger to any of the neighbouring properties.

3 O.S.NO.2509/15

5.While the matter stood thus, the defendant officials all of sudden visited the suit premises on 13.10.2015 and illegally tried to interfere and to demolish the structures in the suit property without issuing any notice and without assigning any reasons. But due to timely intervention of the plaintiff and their family members and the locality people, the defendant officials could not succeed in their illegal act and left the suit premises threatening the plaintiff that they would come again with more squad at any time and would under take illegal act of demolition in near future without issuing any notice.

6.The plaintiffs submit that the defendant is under legal obligation to issue the notices as per the provisions of GHMC Act and give fair chance of hearing to the plaintiff and then to proceed as to the law before undertaking demolition. The act of the defendant is void, illegal, arbitrary, malafide and against the principles of the natural justice and due to urgency the issuance of mandatory notice u/s.685 of HMC Act is not necessary and the plaintiff filing the present suit without issuing any notice u/s 685 of HMC Act

Therefore, there is every evil threat from the defendant corporation. Hence the suit.

7.On the other hand the defendant corporation filed written statement and denied the allegations made by the plaintiff and admitted that the defendant corporation contended that the plaintiffs have obtained two separate permissions for construction of ground and first floor for residential purpose for schedule A, B and C properties but the plaintiffs by not maintaining the all around open spaces as insisted in the sanction plan and also constructed the building by clubbing two properties and also made illegal construction of raising columns for 2nd floor instead of permitted ground plus first floor. The defendant officials have issued show cause notice u/s.452 (1) and 462 (1) of HMC Act but the plaintiffs have not issued

4 O.S.NO.2509/15

any reply and approached this Hon'ble Court by filing the present petition.

The defendant officials never tried to interfere with the construction of the plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have failed to give one month prior notice which is mandatory u/s.685 of HMC Act, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

8.Based on the pleadings of both the parties the following issues are framed for trial:

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against

GHMC/defendant as prayed for?

ii. Whether the suit is bad for non-issuance of notice under Section 685 of HMC Act?

iii. To what relief?

9.On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of defendant, defendant reported no evidence and no documents were marked.

10.Heard both sides.

11. ISSUE NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against GHMC/defendant as prayed for?

The plaintiffs contended that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties by virtue of a registered sale deeds. After purchase of the suit schedule property they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties and with an intention to develop the above properties the plaintiffs approached the defendant corporation with necessary documents and the defendant corporation after scrutiny and verification of said application the corporation granted 3 separate permissions for schedule A and B properties i.e., ground + 1st floor for residential purpose. While the work was in progress, the defendant officials all of a sudden visited the suit property on 13.10.2015 illegally and tried to

5 O.S.NO.2509/15

demolish the suit property without issuing any notice. Therefore there is every threat from the corporation.

12.On the other hand, the defendant corporation filed his counter and stated that the plaintiffs obtained 2 separate permissions for construction of ground plus first floor for residential purpose but the plaintiffs by not maintaining the all around open spaces as insisted in the sanction plan made illegal construction and constructed the building by clubbing 2 properties. Therefore the plaintiffs further not followed sanctioned plan and made construction with deviations to the sanctioned plan. Therefore the plaintiffs have approached the court with clean hands. The plaintiff also not issued notice before filing the said suit.

13.The plaintiffs relied upon Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are sale deeds Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 are permit and sanction plans. On the other hand the corporation not choose to file any document before this court that the plaintiffs came to the court by suppressing the real facts. From these documents, it reveals that the plaintiff is in the suit schedule property and followed the due process of law and there is every threat from the corporation.

14.In the cross examination of PW1 he admitted that they obtained separate permissions for construction of ground plus one floor and denied that they made construction of building by clubbing two permission and also admitted that they made construction of ground plus four upper floors and thereafter they applied for BRS for regularization of unuthorized construction. They admitted that PW1 did not issued commencement notice

before starting construction but informed orally to the corporation and

denied that the corporation issued notices and admitted that Pw1 did not issued notice u/s. 685 of HMC Act before filing this suit.

15.On the other hand the corporation contention is that the plaintiffs

6 O.S.NO.2509/15

made construction by clubbing two properties but the corporation has not filed any single document to disprove the contention of plaintiff herein and the corporation also not choose to come to the court to depose evidence against the plaintiff herein but to that extent corporation did not filed any single document to show that the corporation visited the suit premises. From these lines, it clearly shows that he is in possession of suit schedule property and to disprove the contention of plaintiff, the defendant corporation not choose to file any document and to that extent the defendant corporation not filed any single document to rebut the evidence of plaintiff contention. It clearly shows that with malafide intention, the corporation officials visited the suit schedule property. Mere pleadings cannot give evidentiary value.

Therefore, the GHMC only interfered with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiffs herein and there is every threat to the plaintiffs and it was proved and established that the plaintiffs that there is a threat from the corporation. Accordingly, this issue is answered infavour of the plaintiff.

16. ISSUE NO.2:Whether the plaintiff issued notice under section 685 of HMC against the defendant corporation ?

A notice U/S 685 of HMC Act shall be issued before 30 days prior to filing of the suit against the GHMC. In the instant case, the plaintiffs submitted that they have not issued the notice U/S 685 of HMC Act before filing the present suit. Section 685 of HMC Act speaks as follows: No suit shall be instituted against the Corporation or against the Commissioner or a

Deputy Commissioner or against any officer or servant, appointed under this act, in respect of any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of this Act or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this Act- until the expiration of the one month next after notice in writing has been issue”. The plaintiff submitted that due to malafide acts

7 O.S.NO.2509/15

of officials of GHMC and due to urgency not issued notice U/S 685 of HMC

Act. Hence it is established that the defendant corporation acted malafidely.

As such a notice U/S 685 of HMC Act is not required. I relied on citation reported in Viqarunnisa Begum and others Vs Municipal Corporation of

Hyderabad 2009(2) ALT 652. Their lordship held that in view of the malafides on the part of defendant corporation and its officials there is no necessity of issuance of notice U/S 685 of HMC Act.

Hence issue No.2 is also answered in favour of plaintiff.

17. ISSUE NO.3:To what relief?

Since issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendant corporation, the suit is deserves to be decreed.

In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiffs restraining the defendant corporation, its employees, subordinates, workmen or any other person or persons claiming through or acting under it from interfering with construction or demolishing any part of the both A and B schedule properties. However, if there are any extra floors/deviations over suit schedule property, the defendant is at liberty to proceed against plaintiffs construction by following due process of law until disposal of BRS application.

Typed by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28th day of October, 2016.

sd/-

Smt.K.Maruthi Devi

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: Sri Ganesh Mal SutharNONE.

8 O.S.NO.2509/15

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Copy of sale deed vide doc.no.1677/14 dt.20.6.2014

Ex.A2 : Copy of sale deed vide doc.no.1700/14 dt.20.6.2014

Ex.A3 : Copy of sanction plan and permit for schedule A property

Ex.A4 : Copy of sanction plan and permit for schedule B property

Ex.A5 : BRS acknowledgment dt.9.1.2016

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

sd/-

Smt.K.Maruthi Devi

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERBAD

Dated This The 27 th day of October, 2016.

Present: SMT. K.Maruthi Devi,

VI Junior Civil Judge

O.S.No.3138 of 2015

Between: Mir Aiyan Ali, S/o. Late Mir Yousuf Ali,

Aged : 33 years, occ : Private Service at abroad,

R/o.H.No. 17-1-181/M/125, Darabjung Colony,

Madannapet, Hyderabad.

Rep. by his G.P.A Holder

Mrs. Afser begum, W/o. Late Mir Yousuf Ali,

Aged : 45 years, Occ : Household,

R/o. H.NO. 17-1-181/M/125,

Darab Jung Colony, Madannapet, Hyderabad.

......Plaintiff

AND

The Commissioner,

Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation of Hyderabad,

Rep. by Special Officer,

Office at Municipal complex,

Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

.....Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri Md.ali Aamir, Advocate for the plaintiff and of P.Vimala Devi,

Standing Counsel for GHMC and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by plaintiff seeking to declare the notice no.181/ACP/C4/GHMC/2015, dt.17..11.2014 purporting to be under section 452 (2) of HMC Act 1955 as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires and nonest and also to restrain the defendant corporation, their employees, servants, agents, labourers, contractors, demolishing square or any other official, person or persons representing thorugh them from interfering in

2 O.S.NO.3138/15

the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff by demolishing the suit schedule property.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

The plaintiff submits that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing M.No. 17-1-181/M/125, admeasuring 200.00 Sq yards or equivalent to 167.22 Sq Mtrs, situated at Darabjung Colony,

Madannapet, Hyderabad by virtue of Registered Sale Deed bearing doc.no.259/2014, dt.20-01-2014. Since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interruption of any kind from any corner. The previous owner of the suit property has obtained municipal permission for construction of ground floor and first floor vide permit no.455/36 dt.4.3.1994 and already ground floor has been constructed and pillars are raised on the first floor of the suit schedule property so question of unauthorized construction does not arise.

3. One Mrs. Tasneem Mohammedi Begum due to certain difference has filed a false complaint dt.2.11.2015 before the defendant herein stating that the plaintiff herein making unauthorized construction and on the basis of complaint the defendant issued a notice u/s.452 (1) and 461 (1) of the HMC Act, dt.5/6-11-2015 to the plaintiff herein and plaintiff had given reply to the said notice on 19.11.2015 to the defendant informing that the previous owners have already obtained construction permission but the defendant issued another notice no.181/ACP/C4/GHMC/2015 dt.17.11.2014 purporting to be under section 452 (2) of HMC Act 1955 and in the said notice the defendant has mentioned that” you have neither submitted any sanctioned plan/registered ownership documents”.

4.The plaintiff further submits that the said Mrs.Tasneem Mohammedi

Begum and others were creating nuisance at the suit schedule property

3 O.S.NO.3138/15

as such the plaintiff lodged a complaint dt.19.11.2014 at P.S.Madannapet.

5.The defendant officials are bent upon taking the illegal steps either at the instance or instigation of others and the defendants has no right to take such coercive methods and the act of defendant is malafide. Due to imminent threats of demolition, the plaintiffs has not issued notice U/S 685 of HMC Act. Therefore, there is every evil threat from the defendant corporation. Hence the suit.

6.The defendant corporation filed written statement in which denied all the allegations leveled against the corporation and submits that the plaintiff be put to strict proof of their ownership and possession over the suit property. The defendant corporation stated that the permission obtained by the previous owner was already expired for ground floor in the year 2014 thereafter the plaintiff has started new construction without maintaining set backs, opened windows and ventilators towards the neighbouring property and also raised RCC columns for the construction of first floor without obtaining permission from the defendant corporation as required u/s.428 and 433 of HMC Act.

7.More over there are several complaints against the construction of the plaintiff so the defendant officials issued impugned notice dt.17.11.2015 as admitted by plaintiff but the defendant has given false reply so the defendant officials issued another notice u/s.452 (2) of HMC

Act but the plaintiff instead of giving reply directly filed the suit by making false allegations. The plaintiff had failed to give one month prior notice which is mandatory U/s.685 of HMC Act, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

8.Based on the pleadings of both the parties the following issues are framed for trial:

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against

4 O.S.NO.3138/15

GHMC/defendant as prayed for?

ii. Whether the plaintiff issued notice u/s.685 of HMC Act against the defendant corporation?

iii. To what relief?

9.On behalf of plaintiff, GPA holder examined as PW1 and got marked the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. On behalf of defendant, defendant reported no evidence and no documents were marked.

10.Heard both sides.

11. ISSUE NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against GHMC/defendant as prayed for?

The plaintiffs contention is that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed. After acquiring the suit schedule property he was is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The previous owner of the suit property has obtained municipal permission for construction of ground floor and first floor vide permit no.455/36 dt.4.3.1994 and the said construction was completed.

12. One Mrs. Tasneem Mohammedi Begum has filed a false complaint dt.2.11.2015 before the defendant herein stating that the plaintiff herein making unauthorized construction and on the basis of complaint the defendant issued a notice u/s.452 (1) and 461 (1) of the HMC Act, dt.5/6- 11-2015 to the plaintiff herein and plaintiff had given reply that the previous owners have already obtained construction permission but the defendant issuedanothernoticeno.181/ACP/C4/GHMC/2015 dt.17.11.2014 purporting to be under section 452 (2) of HMC Act 1955 and in the said notice the defendant has mentioned that” you have neither submitted any sanctioned plan/registered ownership documents”.

13.The plaintiff further submits that the said Mrs.Tasneem Mohammedi

5 O.S.NO.3138/15

Begum and others were creating nuisance at the suit schedule property as such the plaintiff lodged a complaint dt.19.11.2014 at P.S.Madannapet, . Therefore there is every threat from the corporation.

14.On the other hand, the defendant contention is that plaintiff's permission obtained by the previous owner was already expired and the plaintiff has started new construction without maintaining set backs, opened windows and ventilators towards the neighbouring property and also raised RCC columns for the construction of first floor without obtaining permission from the defendant corporation as required u/s.428 and 433 of HMC Act.

15.More over there are several complaints against the construction of the plaintiff so the defendant officials issued impugned notice dt.17.11.2015 as admitted by plaintiff but the defendant has given false reply so the defendant officials issued another notice u/s.452 (2) of HMC

Act but the plaintiff instead of giving reply directly filed the suit by making false allegations. The plaintiff had failed to give one month prior notice which is mandatory U/s.685 of HMC Act, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

16.The plaintiffs relied upon Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. Ex.A1 is original GPA.

Ex.A2 is Copy of Sale Deed, it shows that the plaintiffs herein acquired the said property from his Vendor. Ex.A3 is Copy of sanction plan. Ex.A4 is notice issued u/s.452 (1) & 461 (1) of HMC Act dt.5.11.2015. Ex.A5 is reply notice dt.19.11.2015. Ex.A6 is notice u/s.452 (2) of HMC act 16.11.2015. Ex.A7 is copy of complaint. Ex.A8 is acknowledgment of police complaint dt.19.11.2015. Ex.A9 are photographs.

17.In the cross examination PW1 admitted that she purchased the property at about 2 yrs back and the said vendor obtained permission from GHMC for construction of ground plus one upper floor in the year

6 O.S.NO.3138/15

2005. PW1 admitted that the corporation issued notices for illegal construction and the plaintiff given reply for the same and admitted that the PW1 not issued notice u/s.685 of HMC Act.

18. On the other hand the defendant contention is that the plaintiff started new construction without maintaining set backs, opened windows and ventilators towards the neighbouring property and also raised RCC columns for the construction of first floor without obtaining permission from the defendant corporation but to that extent he did not filed any single document to show that the corporation visited the suit premises. It clearly shows that with malafide intention, the corporation officials visited the suit schedule property. Mere pleadings cannot give evidentiary value.

Therefore, the GHMC only interfered with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiffs herein and there is every threat to the plaintiffs and it was proved and established that the plaintiffs that there is a threat from the corporation. Accordingly, this issue is answered infavour of the plaintiff.

19. ISSUE NO.2:Whether the suit is bad for non-issuance of notice under Section 685 of HMC Act?

A notice U/S 685 of HMC Act shall be issued before 30 days prior to filing of the suit against the GHMC. In the instant case, the plaintiffs submitted that they have not issued the notice U/S 685 of HMC Act before filing the present suit. Section 685 of HMC Act speaks as follows: No suit shall be instituted against the Corporation or against the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner or against any officer or servant, appointed under this act, in respect of any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of this Act or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this Act- until the expiration of the one month next after notice in writing has been issue”. The plaintiff submitted that

7 O.S.NO.3138/15

due to malafide acts of officials of GHMC and due to urgency not issued notice U/S 685 of HMC Act. Hence it is established that the defendant corporation acted malafidely. As such a notice U/S 685 of HMC Act is not required. I relied on citation reported in Viqarunnisa Begum and others

Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad 2009(2) ALT 652. Their lordship held that in view of the malafides on the part of defendant corporation and its officials there is no necessity of issuance of notice U/S 685 of HMC

Act.

Hence issue No.2 is also answered in favour of plaintiff.

20. ISSUE NO.3:To what relief?

Since issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendant corporation, the suit is deserves to be decreed.

In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by declaring the notice no.181/ACP/C4/GHMC/2015, dt.17..11.2014 purporting to be under section 452 (2) of HMC Act 1955 as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires and nonest and also restraining the defendant corporation, their employees, servants, agents, labourers, contractors, demolishing square or any other official, person or persons representing through them from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff by demolishing the suit schedule property. However, if there are any extra floors/deviations over suit schedule property, the defendant is atliberty to proceed against plaintiffs construction by following due process of law.

Typed by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th day of October, 2016.

sd/-

Smt.K.Maruthi Devi

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

8 O.S.NO.3138/15

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: Afser BegumNone

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Original GPA.

Ex.A2 : Copy of Sale Deed.

Ex.A3 : Copy of sanction plan.

Ex.A4 : Notice issued u/s.452 (1) & 461 (1) of HMC Act dt.5.11.2015.

Ex.A5 : Reply notice dt.19.11.2015.

Ex.A6 : Notice u/s.452 (2) of HMC Act 16.11.2015.

Ex.A7 : Copy of complaint.

Ex.A8 : Acknowledgment of police complaint dt.19.11.2015.

Ex.A9 : Photographs.

sd/­ Smt.K.Maruthi Devi

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERBAD

Dated the 18 th Day of April 2017

PRESENT: SMT. K.MARUTHI DEVI,

VI Junior Civil Judge

O.S.No.558 o f 2016

Between: Sri Syed Yousuf, S/o. Late Syed Ahmed, aged : 75 years, Occ :Retired Employee, R/o. H.NO. 5-6-69, Aghapura, Hyderabad. ......Plaintif

AND

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner Having its head office at Municipal Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

.....Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

Hafoon Osman, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri G.Gopala Chary,

Standing Counsel for GHMC and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by plaintiff seeking to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, its employees, subordinates, workmen or any other person or persons claiming through or acting under it from interfering in any manner or demolishing any part of the suit schedule property either in whole or in part.

2. The case of the plaintifs is as follows:

The plaintiff submits that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house property in premises bearing No. 5-6-69, CIB NO.213/C, admesauring 90.52 sq.yds situated at Aghapura, Hyderabad having purchased the same through Registered Sale Deed dt.17-06-1980. Since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interruption of any kind from any corner.

3.The plaintiff with an intention to develop the property, the plaintiff approached the defendant corporation and made application by submitting required plans and all other necessary relevant documents. Thereafter the

2 O.S.NO.558/16

defendant officials after due scrutiny and verification of the said application have granted permission for construction of Ground and 1st floor in the suit property vide permit no.33629/DC/CZ/Cir-8/2014 dt.8.5.2014 after surrendering an extent of 17.61 sq.mtrs to the defendant corporation without claiming any compensation.

4.After receiving the sanctioned plan, the plaintiff proceeded with the construction in the suit schedule property and after intimating the defendant corporation about the commencement of construction orally.

Since the date of commencement of the construction the other subordinates of the defendant were constantly visiting the suit schedule property and inspecting the progress of the construction from time to time and never raised any objection.

5.While the matter stood thus, the defendant officials all of sudden on 3-03-2016, visited the suit premises illegally and tried to interfere with the construction work and demolish the structures in the suit property without issuing any notice and without assigning any reason. The plaintiff resisted the defendant corporation with great difficulty with the help of workers at the suit schedule property.

6.The defendant officials are under legal obligation to issue the notices as per the provisions of GHMC Act and give fair chance of hearing to the plaintiffs and then to proceed as per law before undertaking demolition.

The action of the defendant officials is void, illegal, arbitrary, malafide and against the principles of the natural justice and due to urgency of the case, the plaintiff not issued mandatory notice u/s.685 of HMC Act, because if the plaintiffs issues the said notice and wait for the statutory period to expire, then the defendant officials would succeed in demolition of the suit property as threatened by them. Hence the suit.

7.The defendant corporation filed written statement in which denied

3 O.S.NO.558/16

all the allegations leveled against the corporation and submits that the plaintiffs be put to strict proof of their ownership and possession over the suit property. The defendant corporation admitted that the plaintiff has obtained permission for construction of ground and first floor for individual residential purpose vide permit no.33629/DC/CZ/Cir-8/2014, dt.8-05-2014.

Further the plaintiff has commenced the construction without issuing notice u/s 440 of HMC Act. The defendant officials during their routine inspection they found that the plaintiff has raised RCC columns and centering work was under progress for ground floor in deviation to the sanction plan. Immediately the defendant officials have issued a Notice u/s 452(1) and 461(1) of HMC Act, 1955, dt. 12-2-2016 and the plaintiff failed to given any reply to the said notice and has been proceeding with the construction work. But before the defendant corporation takes further course of action as per law, the plaintiff has approached this Hon'ble Court and obtained the interim orders against the defendant's corporation by misrepresentation of facts. Even after the interim status quo orders the plaintiff proceeded with construction and the plaintiff has failed to give one month prior notice which is mandatory U/s.685 of HMC Act, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

8.Based on the pleadings of both the parties the following issues are framed for trial :

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against

GHMC/defendant as prayed for?

ii. Whether the suit is bad for non-issuance of notice under Section 685 of HMC Act?

iii. To what relief?

9.On behalf of plaintiff plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. On behalf of defendant,

4 O.S.NO.558/16

defendant reported no evidence and no documents were marked.

10.Heard both sides.

11. ISSUE NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against GHMC/defendant as prayed for?

The plaintiff contention is that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed. After acquiring the suit schedule property he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. With an intention to construct the building by demolishing the old structure, the plaintiff approached the defendant corporation with necessary documents and the defendant corporation after scrutiny and verification of said application the corporation granted permission for the construction of ground + 1st floor for residential purpose. While the work was in progress, the defendant officials all of a sudden visited the suit property on 3-3-2016 illegally and tried to demolish the suit property without issuing any notice. Due to urgency plaintiff not issued notice u/s.685 before filing this suit. Therefore there is every threat from the corporation.

12.On the other hand, the defendant contention is that plaintiff has obtained permission for ground plus first floor. Further the plaintiff has commenced the construction without issuing notice u/s 440 of HMC Act.

Further the plaintiff has commenced the construction without issuing notice u/s 440 of HMC Act. The defendant officials during their routine inspection they found that the plaintiff has raised RCC columns and centering work was under progress for ground floor in deviation to the sanction plan. Immediately the defendant officials have issued a Notice u/s 452(1) and 461(1) of HMC Act, 1955, dt. 12-2-2016 and the plaintiff failed to given any reply to the said notice and has been proceeding with the construction work. The plaintiff has filed the suit without issuing notice u/s

5 O.S.NO.558/16

685 of HMC Act. By the time the defendant corporation proceeds with further course of action the plaintiff herein have approached this Hon'ble

Court.

13.The plaintiff relied upon Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Ex.P1 is Copy of Registered

Sale Deed, it shows that the plaintiff herein acquired the said property from Vendors. Ex.P2 is sanction plan, Ex.A3 is medical report and Ex.A4 is

C.D. On perusal of Ex.P2 the permission was granted for ground + first floor. From these documents, it reveals that the plaintiff is in the suit schedule property and followed the due process of law and there is every threat from the corporation.

The plaintiff is PW1's father and he executed GPA in his favour and deposed the evidence in his favour. The PW1 admitted that at the time of construction they did not issue commencement notice u/s.440 of HMC Act and the same was informed orally to the defendant corporation. He denied that the corporation issued notices u/s.452 (1) and 461 (1) of HMC Act for illegal construction. As per sanction plan they have constructed the construction and plaintiff counsel argued that at the time of construction the GHMC authorities came to the suit schedule property and threatened them to demolish the illegal construction i.e., Ex.A4 but the same was not complained to the higher officials of corporation.

On the other hand the defendant contention is that the plaintiff made illegal and unauthorized construction without obtaining any prior permission. From these documents, it discloses that the plaintiff is in suit schedule property without any interruption from any corner and the corporation also not choose to come to the court to depose evidence against the plaintiff herein and the plaintiff herein stated that the corporation officials visited the suit premises but to that extent he did not filed any single document to show that the corporation visited the suit

6 O.S.NO.558/16

premises. Therefore, the GHMC only interfered with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff herein and there is every threat to the plaintiff and it was proved and established that there is a threat from the corporation. Accordingly, this issue is answered infavour of the plaintiff.

14. ISSUE NO.2:Whether the suit is bad for non-issuance of notice under Section 685 of HMC Act?

A notice U/S 685 of HMC Act shall be issued before 30 days prior to filing of the suit against the GHMC. In the instant case, the plaintiffs submitted that they have not issued the notice U/S 685 of HMC Act before filing the present suit. Section 685 of HMC Act speaks as follows: No suit shall be instituted against the Corporation or against the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner or against any officer or servant, appointed under this act, in respect of any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of this Act or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this Act- until the expiration of the one month next after notice in writing has been issue”. The plaintiff submitted that due to malafide acts of officials of GHMC and due to urgency not issued notice

U/S 685 of HMC Act. Hence it is established that the defendant corporation acted malafidely. As such a notice U/S 685 of HMC Act is not required. I relied on citation reported in Viqarunnisa Begum and others

Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad 2009(2) ALT 652. Their lordship held that in view of the malafides on the part of defendant corporation and its officials there is no necessity of issuance of notice U/S 685 of HMC

Act.

Hence issue No.2 is also answered in favour of plaintiff.

15. ISSUE NO.3:To what relief?

Since issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and

7 O.S.NO.558/16

against defendant corporation, the suit is deserves to be decreed.

In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff for construction of ground plus first floor for residential purpose its employees, subordinates, workmen or any other person or persons claiming through or acting under it from interfering in any manner or demolishing any part of the suit schedule property either in whole or in part. However, if there are any extra floors/deviations over suit schedule property, the defendant is at liberty to proceed against plaintiff's construction by following due process of law.

Typed by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of April, 2017.

sd/-

Maruthi Devi

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: Syed YousufNone

PW2 : Mohd. Irfan Ahmed Khan

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Original Registered Sale Deed Ex.A2 : Original sanction plan Ex.A3 : Omega Hospital Medical report Ex.A4 : C.D

sd/-

Maruthi Devi

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT:

HYDERBAD

Dated This The 24 th day of October, 2016.

Present: SMT. K.Maruthi Devi,

VI Junior Civil Judge

O.S.No.1498 of 2015

Between:

Sri Saket Agarwal, S/o. Sri Suresh Chand Agarwal, Aged : 30 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No. 7-1-282/C/1/13, Lingaiah Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff.

AND

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

Rep. by its Commissioner Cum Special Officer,

Having its head office at Municipal Complex,

Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

...Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

M.Ranjeeth Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri K.Kondala Rao,

Standing Counsel for GHMC and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by plaintiff seeking to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant corporation, restraining the defendant corporation, its employees, subordinates, workmen or any other person or persons claiming through or acting under it from interfering with the construction or demolishing the suit property or any part of the suit schedule property.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

The plaintiffs submitted that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing H.No.7-2-488, (SRT No.267) admesauring 150 sq.yds or 125.42 sq.mtrs situated at Industrial Housing colony, Sanathnagar,

Hyderabad by virtue of registered sale deed bearing doc.no.2340/14 dt.10.12.2014. Since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and

2 O.S.NO.1498 of 2015

enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interruption of any kind from any corner.

3.The plaintiff with an intention to construct a building the plaintiff approached the defendant corporation and made an application by submitting required plans and all other necessary relevant documents and also paid necessary permit fees Rs.37,972/- under G.O.Ms.No.168

MA dt.7.4.2012. Thereafter the the defendant officials after due scrutiny and verification of the said application has granted permission for construction of ground and 1st floor for residential purpose in the suit property vide permit no.41052/DC/CZ/Cir-10/2015 in file no.16332/04/04/2015/C10 dt.17.4.2015 and plaintiff also surrendered an extent of 16.25 sq.mtrs for road widening without claiming any compensation.

4.After receiving the sanctioned plan, the plaintiff proceeded with the construction in the suit schedule property and after intimating the defendant corporation about the commencement of construction orally. Since the date of commencement of the construction the other subordinates of the defendant were constantly visiting the suit schedule property and inspecting the progress of the construction from time to time and never raised any objection.

5.While the construction work is going on, all of sudden on 1.7.2015, the defendant corporation visited the suit premises and tried to interfere and demolish the structures in the suit property without issuing any notice and without assigning any reason. The plaintiff resisted the defendant corporation with great difficulty with the help of family members and workers.

6.The defendant officials are under obligation to issue notices as per the provisions of GHMC Act and give fair chance of hearing to the

3 O.S.NO.1498 of 2015

plaintiff and then to proceed as per law before undertaking demolition.

The action of defendant officials is void, illegal, arbitrary, malafide and against the principles of natural justice. Due to urgency, the plaintiff has not issued notice U/S 685 of HMC Act. Therefore, there is every evil threat from the defendant corporation, Hence, the suit.

7.The defendant corporation filed written statement in which denied all the allegations and averments made against the defendant corporation and further they that the plaintiff obtained permission from the corporation to construct ground plus first floor for residential purpose. It is the contention of defendant corporation that the plaintiff failed to issue notice U/S 440 of HMC Act before commencement of construction work and also excavated the earth with an intention to make illegal and unauthorized construction of cellar.

8.The defendant officials issued notices under section 452 (1) and 461 (1) of HMC Act dt.19.5.2015 and the plaintiff given reply to the said notice dt.21.5.2015 by stating that he dugged the earth for removing loose soil only and not for construction of cellar and further he stated that the earth will be filled up to the ground level after laying the footings and approached this Hon'ble Court and the plaintiff failed to give one month prior notice u/s.685 of HMC Act. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

9.Based on the pleadings of both the parties the following issues are framed for trial:

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against GHMC/defendant as prayed for?

ii. Whether the plaintiff issued notice u/s.685 of HMC Act against the defendant corporation?

iii. To what relief?

4 O.S.NO.1498 of 2015

10.On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 and

Ex.A2 were marked. On behalf of defendant, defendant reported no evidence and no documents were marked.

11.Heard both sides.

12. ISSUE NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against GHMC/defendant as prayed for?

The plaintiff contended that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed. After purchase of the suit schedule property he was is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. With an intention to construct a building the plaintiff approached the defendant corporation with necessary documents and the defendant corporation after scrutiny and verification of said application the corporation granted ground + 1st floor for residential purpose. While the work was in progress, the defendant officials all of a sudden visited the suit property on 1.7.2015 illegally and tried to demolish the suit property without issuing any notice. Therefore there is every threat from the corporation.

13.On the other hand, the defendant corporation filed his written statement and stated that the plaintiff obtained permission for construction of ground + first floor for residential purpose. The plaintiff not issued commencement notice u/s.440 of HMC Act. The plaintiff dugged the earth for removing loose soil only and not for construction of cellar and further he stated that the earth will be filled up to the ground level after laying the footings. Immediately the defendant officials issued notices under section 452 (1) and 461 (1) of HMC Act dt.19.5.2015 and the plaintiff given reply to the said notice dt.21.5.2015 by stating that he dugged the earth for removing loose soil only and not for construction of cellar and further he stated that the

5 O.S.NO.1498 of 2015

earth will be filled up to the ground level after laying the footings and approached this Hon'ble Court. The plaintiff also not issued notice

before filing the said suit.

14.The plaintiff relied upon Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 is sanction plan.

Ex.A3 is permit. On perusal of Ex.A2 the permission was granted for ground + first floor and on the other hand the corporation not choose to file notices before this court that the plaintiff came to the court by suppressing the real facts.

15. In the cross examination he admitted that he obtained permission for ground and first floor on the other hand the corporation stated that PW1 constructed cellar beneath ground floor and PW1 not issued commencement notice to the GHMC and it was admitted the same and further stated that he orally informed the same to the corporation . The Pw1 admitted that he made construction of 3 floors and denied that he does not comes under the ambit of BRS scheme and he did not issued notice u/s.685 of HMC Act.

16.On the other hand the Corporation contention, is that the plaintiff herein constructed ground plus first floor but the corporation has not filed any single document to disprove the contention of plaintiff herein and the corporation also not choose to come to the court to depose evidence against the plaintiff herein and the plaintiff herein stated that the corporation officials visited the suit premises on one occasion but to that extent he did not file any single document to show that the corporation visited the suit premises. From these lines it clearly shows that he is in possession of suit schedule property and to disprove the contention of plaintiff, the defendant Corporation not choose to file any document and to that extent the defendant corporation not filed any single document to rebut the evidence of

6 O.S.NO.1498 of 2015

plaintiff contention. It clearly shows that with malafide intention, the corporation officials visited the suit schedule property. Mere pleadings cannot give evidentiary value. Therefore, the GHMC only interfered with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiffs herein and there is every threat to the plaintiffs and it was proved and established that the plaintiffs that there is a threat from the corporation. Accordingly, this issue is answered infavour of the plaintiff.

17. ISSUE NO.2:

A notice U/S 685 of HMC Act shall be issued before 30 days prior to filing of the suit against the GHMC. In the instant case, the plaintiffs submitted that they have not issued the notice U/S 685 of HMC Act

before filing the present suit. Section 685 of HMC Act speaks as

follows: No suit shall be instituted against the Corporation or against the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner or against any officer or servant, appointed under this act, in respect of any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of this Act or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this Act- until the expiration of the one month next after notice in writing has been issue”. The plaintiff submitted that due to malafide acts of officials of

GHMC and due to urgency not issued notice U/S 685 of HMC Act.

Hence it is established that the defendant corporation acted malafidely. As such a notice U/S 685 of HMC Act is not required. I relied on citation reported in Viqarunnisa Begum and others Vs

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad 2009(2) ALT 652. Their lordship held that in view of the malafides on the part of defendant corporation and its officials there is no necessity of issuance of notice U/S 685 of

HMC Act.

7 O.S.NO.1498 of 2015

Hence issue No.2 is also answered in favour of plaintiff.

18. ISSUE NO.3:To what relief?

Since issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendant corporation, the suit is deserves to be decreed.

In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff for for construction of ground plus first floor in schedule property for residential purpose restraining the defendant corporation, its employees, subordinates, workmen or any other person or persons claiming through or acting under it from interfering with the construction or demolishing the suit property or any part of the suit schedule property.

Typed by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of October, 2016.

sd/­ Smt.K.Maruthi Devi

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: Saket AgarwalNONE.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Copy of sanction plan

Ex.A2 :Copy of permit

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT: NIL sd/­ Smt.K.Maruthi Devi

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,

HYDERABAD.

Dated This The 21 st Day of April, 2017.

Present: SMT. K.Maruthi Devi,

VI Junior Civil Judge

O.S.No. 714 o f 2015

Between:

1. Sri P.Sudershan, S/o. P.Satiah, Aged : 62 years, Occ : Retried Employee, H.No. 17-7-330, Yakuthpura, Bahminwadi, Hyderabad.

2. Sri Kambalapally Shekar Reddy, S/o. K.Narsimha Reddy, Aged : 43 years, Occ : Business, R/o. EWSH – 137, New Santosh Nagar colony, Hyderabad.

...plaintiffs.

AND

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner and Spl. Officer, Having its Head Office at Municipal Complex, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad.

... Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

M.Ranjeeth Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of P.Vimla Devi,

Standing Counsel for GHMC and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this court passed the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by plaintiff to grant perpetual injunction against the defendant corporation, its employees, subordinates, workmen or any other person or persons claiming through or acting under it from interfering in any manner or demolishing any part of the suit properties either in whole or in part.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The plaintiff no.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the property in shop no.2 in ground floor in Municipal House bearing No.16-1- 24/106, New House No.16-1-24/106/B, Vijayasri Enclave, admeasuring 198 sq.ft along with undivided share of 15 sq.yds situated at Saidabad,

Hyderabad having purchased the same by virtue of registered sale deed

2 O.S.NO.714/15 

vide doc.no.1553/2003 described schedule A property.

3.The plaintiff no.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of the property in shop no.1 in ground floor in Municipal House bearing No.16-1-24/106, New

House No.16-1-24/106/A, Vijayasri Enclave, admeasuring 205 sq.ft along with undivided share of 15 sq.yds situated at Saidabad, Hyderabad having purchased the same by virtue of registered sale deed vide doc.no.2020/2003 described as schedule B property.

4.The suit properties have been assessed by the defendant corporation and from the date of assessment the plaintiffs are paying property tax to the defendant corporation. The suit schedule property is having electricity connection and the plaintiff is regularly paying the electricity consumption charges. The plaintiffs have made application for regularization of the said shops to the defendant corporation by paying necessary fees and by submitting the required documents as required under BPS scheme vide application no.BPS/1007/BPS/C4/SZ/GHMC/2008 dt.22.4.2008 in respect of A schedule property and no.BPS/1006/BPS/C4/SZ/GHMC/2008 dt.22.4.2008 inrespect of B schedule property.

5.The said property constructed long back and it has become very old and it is not in the position for habitation and in order to give a good shape to the said property by way of internal and external repairs the plaintiff approached the defendant corporation for obtaining necessary permission and the defendant corporation stated that no permission is required as per the provisions of the rule 3.5 of Building Bye Laws of HMC Act.. Hence the plaintiff has made some repairs to strengthen the property. The structures in the suit property are well within the boundaries of the suit property and said repairing works is not causing any inconvenience to anybody.

6.While the matter being so on 2.4.2015 and again on some officials of the defendant corporation came to the suitschedule property and interfered with the repair works and threatened for demolition of the structures standing in the suit property. The plaintiff has successfully resisted the illegal act of the

3 O.S.NO.714/15 

defendant officials with the help of neighbours and the workers but the defendant officials left suit premises threatening that they will come and demolish the existing structures. The defendant officials are under legal obligation to issue prior notices as section 461, 452 and 636 of H.M.C Act and give fair chance of hearing to the plaintiffs and then proceed as the provisions of HMC Act.

7.The action of defendant is illegal, arbitrary and there is imminent threat of demolition to the suit property and therefore no notice u/s.685 of HMC Act is required to be issued to the defendant. Hence the plaintiff pray this Hon'ble

Court to grant interim injunction order in their favour. Hence the suit.

8.On the other hand, the defendant corporation filed written statement in which denied all the allegations and averments made against the defendant corporation and further stated that the plaintiffs and their vendors have made illegal and unauthorized construction of two mulgies in the area meant for parking purpose as per sanctioned plan without obtaining permission from the defendant corporation as required u/s.423 to 433 of HMC Act. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled for any equitable relief of injunction as the plaintiff suppressed the material facts and made baseless, false allegations on the defendant. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

9.Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues are framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against

GHMC/defendant as prayed for?

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-issuance of notice under Section 685 of

HMC Act?

3. To what relief ?

10.On behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to Exs.A5 were marked. On behalf of defendant, defendant reported no evidence and no documents were marked.

11.Heard both sides.

4 O.S.NO.714/15 

12.I SSUE NO.1:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against

GHMC/defendant as prayed for ?

The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties A and B by virtue of registered sale deed. From the date of assessment the plaintiff paid property tax regularly. Due to old construction it is not in a position for habitation. Therefore in order to give a good shape they have attend repairs such as internal and external repairs, plastering, flooring and white washing and they approached the corporation to obtained the necessary permission to attend repairs. The corporation officials informed that no permission is required for repairs works under 3.5 bye laws. While attending the repairs, the defendant officials visited the suit property and interfered with the repair work and threatened for existing structure. Due to urgency the plaintiff unable to issue the notice u/s.685 of HMC Act. Therefore there is every threat from the defendant corporation.

13.On the other hand the defendant contention is that plaintiffs and their vendors have made illegal and unauthorized construction of two mulgies in the area meant for parking purpose as per sanctioned plan without obtaining permission from the defendant corporation as required u/s.423 to 433 of HMC

Act. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

14.The plaintiff relied upon Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are copy of sale deeds. Ex.A2 is property tax receipts. Ex.A3 is original electricity bills and

Ex.A5 is BRS acknowledgment. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 documents reveals that how the plaintiff acquired the property and they were in possession of the suit schedule properties. Ex.A3 shows they were in very prompt in payment of property tax. Ex.A5 is BRS acknowledgement. Therefore the plaintiff herein is in peaceful possession of suit schedule property and he followed the due process of law.

15. In his cross examination Pw1 denied that he along with his vendor constructed mulgies in parking area and the same was running for

5 O.S.NO.714/15 

commercial purpose and denied that PW1 under the guise of repairs made new construction. PW1 stated that he filed an application before the corporation under bRS to regularize his unauthorized construction and the said application is pending before the corporation. Further PW1 also denied that he constructed the construction in the parking area and for that he is not entitled for BRS and also admitted that he did not issued notice u/s.685 of

HMC Act.

16.On the other hand the corporation not filed any single document to disprove the contention of PW1 and not choose to come to the court to depose evidence against the PW1. Therefore there is every malafide act of the defendant shown so far. From these documents, it reveals that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property without any interruption from any person.

17. ISSUE NO.2:

Whether the suit is bad for non-issuance of notice under Section 685 of

HMC Act?

A notice U/S 685 of HMC Act shall be issued before 30 days prior to filing of the suit against the GHMC. In the instant case, the plaintiffs submitted that they have not issued the notice U/S 685 of HMC Act before filing the present suit. Section 685 of HMC Act speaks as follows: No suit shall be instituted against the Corporation or against the Commissioner or a Deputy

Commissioner or against any officer or servant, appointed under this act, in respect of any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of this Act or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this

Act- until the expiration of the one month next after notice in writing has been issue”. The plaintiffs submitted that due to malafide acts of officials of

GHMC and due to urgency not issued notice U/S 685 of HMC Act. Hence it is established that the defendant corporation acted malafidely. As such a notice

U/S 685 of HMC Act is not required. I relied on citation reported in

Viqarunnisa Begum and others Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

6 O.S.NO.714/15 

2009(2) ALT 652. Their lordship held that in view of the malafides on the part of defendant corporation and its officials there is no necessity of issuance of notice U/S 685 of HMC Act.

Hence issue No.2 is also answered in favour of plaintiffs.

18. ISSUE NO.3:

To what relief ?

Since issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiffs and against defendant corporation, the suit is deserves to be decreed.

In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendants from interfering or demolishing the suit schedule property till pending disposal of BRS application.

Typed to dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of April, 2017.

sd/-

Maruthi Devi

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: P.SudershanNone

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Copy of sale deed vide doc.no.1553/03 dt.16.5.2003

Ex.A2 : Copy of sale deed vide doc.no.2020/2003 dt.25.6.2003

Ex.A3 : Copy of Property tax receipt

Ex.A4 : Original electricity bills

Ex.A3 : Copy of BRS acknowledgment

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:-Nil-

sd/-

Maruthi Devi

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.