Smt T Jayalakshmi

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

HYDERBAD

THURSDAY Dated the 27 th Day of MARCH, 2014.

PRESENT: SMT. T. JAYALAKSHMI, B.COM., M.L.,

VI Junior Civil Judge

O.S.NO.2117 of 2012

Between: Chavva Esthari S/o Late Sayanna, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business,

R/o 16-11-103, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ....Plaintiff.

And

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Having its Head Office at Municipal Complex,

Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. ...Defendant.

This suit is coming on 27.03.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Uma Maheshwar, Advocate for plaintiff and of

Smt. P. Vimala Devi, Standing counsel for GHMC/Defendant 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 and its men from demolishing the suit property either in part or in whole and costs of the suit.

2.The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

Plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the house property bearing

H.No. 16-11-103, New No.16-11-103/A/1 admeasuring 126.70 sq.yds, situated at Teelgalaguda, Moosarambagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad by virtue of Registered Sale Deed vide document No.2806/2012 dated 29.06.2012 herein after called the schedule property and after purchase with a view to develop the property by dismantling the existing structure as on the date of the sale deed, the plaintiff approached the defendant and made an application for permission for construction of ground plus first floor on

**2** O.S.NO.2117 OF 2012

27.07.2012 and paid permit fee of Rs.48,260/- as insisted by defendant officials at the time of making the said application and the defendant corporation received the said permitted fee and also collect the sanction plan on 31.7.2012 on CSC acknowledgment and though they received the said application along with the plan but had not passed any orders within the statutory period and so that he got issued commencement notice on 30.08.2012 by explaining the plaintiff going to commence the construction as per submitted plan and after that the construction was started and while the thing so, all of sudden on 15.09.2012 illegally interfered with the construction work with malafide intention and threatened for demolition of the structures but resisted them with great difficulty with the help of neighbours and well wishers. The defendant corporation did not serve any notice and the acts of the defendant officials are malafide and so that the notice under Section 685 of HMC

Act is not issued and hence this suit.

3.The defendant corporation filed written statement contending that the plaintiff has to strict proof of ownership over the schedule property and admittedly submission of application by the plaintiff for construction of ground and first floor for residential purpose but contended that after due scrutiny and verification the defendant officials have rejected the said application on the ground that the plaintiff not shown effected road widening for the proposed 80' wide road as per the master plan and the same has been informed to the plaintiff within statutory period of 30 days and further contended that the plaintiff illegally constructed ground plus three floors, a pent house on the fourth floor in an extent of 253.46 sq.yds for which the permission is required U/S 428-433 of HMC Act and moreover the plaintiff also not maintained all around spaces as per the

**3** O.S.NO.2117 OF 2012

proposed plan and also made deviations which is against the provisions of

Building bye-laws and Rules and Regulations and also denied the alleged interference and contended that no mandatory notice U/S 685 of HMC

Act not issued and hence the suit may be dismissed.

4.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 U/S 685 of

HMC Act?

iii. To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and

Exs.A1 to A4 got marked. On behalf of defendant, defendant reported no evidence and no documents got marked.

6.Heard both sides.

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

As per Section 428 of HMC Act every person who intends to erect a building shall give a Notice to the Commissioner about his intention of construction and obtain permission by submitting necessary forms as per

Section 435 of the HMC Act. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff made an application on 27.07.2012 before the corporation for permission for his intention to construct ground plus first floor for residential purpose by submitting requisite documents and paid permission fees of

Rs.48,260/- . To prove this the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and he orally deposed as per his pleadings and also got marked Exs.A1 to A4.

Ex.A2 is the original plan, Ex.A3 is the acknowledgment of the

**4** O.S.NO.2117 OF 2012

application, Exs.A2 and A3 clearly establishes that the plaintiff paid the requisite fee by submitting the application with proposed plan to the defendant corporation. The defendant corporation also admitted the receipt of the application of the plaintiff but contended that after due scrutiny and verification the officials have rejected the said application.

Then the burden shifts on the defendant corporation to prove that the application was rejected. The defendant corporation being statutory body failed to submit either oral or documentary evidence to prove that the said application was rejected. Therefore it can conclude that Ex.A3 acknowledgment application was pending before the corporation.

8.Section 437 of HMC Act states that “if within 30 days after receipt of the application under Section 428 or 433 the Commissioner has to pass necessary orders granting approval within 30 days and if no such orders passed i.e., either rejection or approval the person who applied can straight away got absolute rights to take up construction by issuing the notice but he can only do so keeping in view of the provisions of the Act.”

9.In the present case as per Ex.A2 the plaintiff applied the permission by paying requisite fee on 27.07.2012. As per the plaintiff case under deemed provision U/S 437 of HMC Act he commenced the construction by issuing notice U/S 440 of HMC Act. To prove this the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and he orally deposed as per his pleadings and also got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A4 is the office copy of the notice

U/S 437 and 440 of HMC Act which bears the seal of the defendant corporation and it was dated 30.08.2012. The same was denied by the defendant corporation. Except denials no evidence was adduced by the corporation to prove that the said application with plan was a created

**5** O.S.NO.2117 OF 2012

one. The plaintiff discharged his initial burden by examining himself as

PW1 and by marking Ex.A4 commencement notice U/S 437 and 440 of

HMC Act. Then the burden shifts on the defendant corporation to disprove the case of the plaintiff but the corporation failed to adduce any evidence to disprove that. Therefore it can conclude that Ex.A4 is the genuine one.

10.By examining the plaintiff himself as PW1 and by marking Exs.A2 and A3 and he proved that he applied the permission on 27.07.2012 as per Ex.A2 and the same was received by the defendant corporation with acknowledgment on 31.7.2012. Within the statutory period as per

Section 437 of HMC Act the application was not rejected and under the deemed approval the plaintiff commenced the construction by issuing notice U/S 437 and 440 of HMC Act as per Ex.A4. Therefore under these circumstances it can conclude that the plaintiff commenced the construction under the deemed provision U/S 437 of HMC Act.

Hence issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant corporation.

11.ISSUE NO.2: Whether the suit is bad for non issuance of notice U/S 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 plaintiff submitted that he has 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

**6** O.S.NO.2117 OF 2012

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. As discussed in issue No.1 the defendant corporation did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to show that they have issued notice contemplated under HMC Act before initiating action of demolition against the plaintiff construction. So 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 and against the defendant corporation.

12.I SSUE 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 ground plus first floor for residential purpose as per Ex.A2 proposed plan under deemed provision

U/S 437 of HMC Act restraining the defendant corporation, its employees, subordinates, workmen or any other person or persons claiming through or acting under it from demolishing the suit property in part or in whole. And if any deviation was made apart from Ex.A2 plan and also further construction apart from the proposed plan the defendant corporation is at liberty to take action by following due process of law.

**7** O.S.NO.2117 OF 2012

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, seen and corrected,

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27th day of March, 2014

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT:HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined: FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: NONE. PW1: Chavva Esthari

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Certified copy of Sale Deed.

Ex.A2 Office copy of building plan.

Ex.A3Acknowledgment.

Ex.A4Office copy of notice U/S 437 and 440 of HMC Act.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

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

HYDERBAD

THURSDAY Dated the 27 th Day of MARCH, 2014.

PRESENT: SMT. T. JAYALAKSHMI, B.COM., M.L.,

VI Junior Civil Judge

O.S.NO.2116 of 2012

Between: Chavva Veeramani W/o Chavva Esthari, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Household,

R/o 16-11-103, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ....Plaintiff.

And

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Having its Head Office at Municipal Complex,

Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. ...Defendant.

This suit is coming on 27.03.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Uma Maheshwar, Advocate for plaintiff and of

Smt. P. Vimala Devi, Standing counsel for GHMC/Defendant 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 and its men from demolishing the suit property either in part or in whole and costs of the suit.

2.The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

Plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the house property bearing

H.No. 16-11-103, New No.16-11-103/A/2 admeasuring 126.70 sq.yds, situated at Teelgalaguda, Moosarambagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad by virtue of Registered Sale Deed vide document No.2805/2012 dated 29.06.2012 herein after called the schedule property and after purchase with a view to develop the property by dismantling the existing structure as on the date of the sale deed, the plaintiff approached the defendant and made an application for permission for construction of ground plus first floor on

**2** O.S.NO.2116 OF 2012

27.07.2012 and paid permit fee of Rs.47,900/- as insisted by defendant officials at the time of making the said application and the defendant corporation received the said permitted fee and also collect the sanction plan on 31.7.2012 on CSC acknowledgment and though they received the said application along with the plan but had not passed any orders within the statutory period and so that she got issued commencement notice on 30.08.2012 by explaining the plaintiff going to commence the construction as per submitted plan and after that the construction was started and while the thing so, all of sudden on 15.09.2012 illegally interfered with the construction work with malafide intention and threatened for demolition of the structures but resisted them with great difficulty with the help of neighbours and well wishers. The defendant corporation did not serve any notice and the acts of the defendant officials are malafide and so that the notice under Section 685 of HMC

Act is not issued and hence this suit.

3.The defendant corporation filed written statement contending that the plaintiff has to strict proof of ownership over the schedule property and admittedly submission of application by the plaintiff for construction of ground and first floor for residential purpose but contended that after due scrutiny and verification the defendant officials have rejected the said application on the ground that the plaintiff not shown effected road widening for the proposed 80' wide road as per the master plan and the same has been informed to the plaintiff within statutory period of 30 days and further contended that the plaintiff illegally constructed ground plus three floors, a pent house on the fourth floor in an extent of 253.40 sq.yds for which the permission is required U/S 428-433 of HMC Act and moreover the plaintiff also not maintained all around spaces as per the

**3** O.S.NO.2116 OF 2012

proposed plan and also made deviations which is against the provisions of

Building bye-laws and Rules and Regulations and also denied the alleged interference and contended that no mandatory notice U/S 685 of HMC

Act not issued and hence the suit may be dismissed.

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

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

ii. Whether the suit is bad for non issuance of notice U/S 685 of

HMC Act?

iii. To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff herself was examined as PW1 and

Exs.A1 to A4 got marked. On behalf of defendant, defendant reported no evidence and no documents got marked.

6.Heard both sides.

7.ISSUE NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

As per Section 428 of HMC Act every person who intends to erect a building shall give a Notice to the Commissioner about her intention of construction and obtain permission by submitting necessary forms as per

Section 435 of the HMC Act. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff made an application on 27.07.2012 before the corporation for permission for his intention to construct ground plus first floor for residential purpose by submitting requisite documents and paid permission fees of

Rs.47,900/- . To prove this the plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and she orally deposed as per her pleadings and also got marked Exs.A1 to

A4. Ex.A2 is the original plan, Ex.A3 is the acknowledgment of the

**4** O.S.NO.2116 OF 2012

application, Exs.A2 and A3 clearly establishes that the plaintiff paid the requisite fee by submitting the application with proposed plan to the defendant corporation. The defendant corporation also admitted the receipt of the application of the plaintiff but contended that after due scrutiny and verification the officials have rejected the said application.

Then the burden shifts on the defendant corporation to prove that the application was rejected. The defendant corporation being statutory body failed to submit either oral or documentary evidence to prove that the said application was rejected. Therefore it can conclude that Ex.A3 acknowledgment application was pending before the corporation.

8.Section 437 of HMC Act states that “if within 30 days after receipt of the application under Section 428 or 433 the Commissioner has to pass necessary orders granting approval within 30 days and if no such orders passed i.e., either rejection or approval the person who applied can straight away got absolute rights to take up construction by issuing the notice but he can only do so keeping in view of the provisions of the Act.”

9.In the present case as per Ex.A2 the plaintiff applied the permission by paying requisite fee on 27.07.2012. As per the plaintiff case under deemed provision U/S 437 of HMC Act he commenced the construction by issuing notice U/S 440 of HMC Act. To prove this the plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and she orally deposed as per her pleadings and also got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A4 is the office copy of the notice U/S 437 and 440 of HMC Act which bears the seal of the defendant corporation and it was dated 30.08.2012. The same was denied by the defendant corporation. Except denials no evidence was adduced by the corporation to prove that the said application with plan was a created

**5** O.S.NO.2116 OF 2012

one. The plaintiff discharged her initial burden by examining herself as

PW1 and by marking Ex.A4 commencement notice U/S 437 and 440 of

HMC Act. Then the burden shifts on the defendant corporation to disprove the case of the plaintiff but the corporation failed to adduce any evidence to disprove that. Therefore it can conclude that Ex.A4 is the genuine one.

10.By examining the plaintiff herself as PW1 and by marking Exs.A2 and A3 and she proved that she applied the permission on 27.07.2012 as per Ex.A2 and the same was received by the defendant corporation with acknowledgment on 31.7.2012. Within the statutory period as per

Section 437 of HMC Act the application was not rejected and under the deemed approval the plaintiff commenced the construction by issuing notice U/S 437 and 440 of HMC Act as per Ex.A4. Therefore under these circumstances it can conclude that the plaintiff commenced the construction under the deemed provision U/S 437 of HMC Act.

Hence issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant corporation.

11.ISSUE NO.2: Whether the suit is bad for non issuance of notice U/S 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 plaintiff submitted that she has 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

**6** O.S.NO.2116 OF 2012

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. As discussed in issue No.1 the defendant corporation did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to show that they have issued notice contemplated under HMC Act before initiating action of demolition against the plaintiff construction. So 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 and against the defendant corporation.

12.I SSUE 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 ground plus first floor for residential purpose as per Ex.A2 proposed plan under deemed provision

U/S 437 of HMC Act restraining the defendant corporation, its employees, subordinates, workmen or any other person or persons claiming through or acting under it from demolishing the suit property either in part or in whole. And if any deviation was made apart from

Ex.A2 plan and also further construction apart from the proposed plan

**7** O.S.NO.2116 OF 2012

the defendant corporation is at liberty to take action by following due process of law.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, seen and corrected,

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27th day of March, 2014

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT:HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined: FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: NONE. PW1: Chavva Veeramani

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Certified copy of Sale Deed.

Ex.A2 Office copy of building plan.

Ex.A3Acknowledgment.

Ex.A4Office copy of notice U/S 437 and 440 of HMC Act.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

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

HYDERBAD

MONDAY Dated the 24 th Day of MARCH, 2014.

PRESENT: SMT. T. JAYALAKSHMI, B.COM., M.L.,

VI Junior Civil Judge

O.S.NO.2599 of 2012

Between: Sri Somadri Anjaiah, S/o Somadri Mallaiah, Aged 67 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o H.No.8­3­502/20, Yellareddyguda, 

Hyderabad. ...Plaintiff

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 on 24.03.2014 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/Defendant 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 and its men from interfering with the construction work of the plaintiff or demolishing of the suit property or any part of the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff and costs of the suit.

2.The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

Plaintiff submitted that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing plot No. 32 in Sy.No.138 (part), admeasuring 200 sq.yards, **2** O.S.NO.2599 OF 2012 situated at Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad and acquired through registered Sale 

Deed bearing document No.10774/1980 dated 22.09.1980 and defendant corporation has assessed the property and allotted the house number bearing 

H.No.8­3­502/20 to the above plot number. Since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption of any kind. Further submitted the plaintiff in order to construct a residential house by demolishing the existing house in the said property approached the defendant corporation and made an application by submitting relevant documents along with permit fees. The defendant officials after due scrutiny and verification has granted permission for proposed construction of ground and first floor vide permit No.11893/DC/CZ/Cir­10/2012 dated 08.06.2012. 

The plaintiff is filing the copies of the sanction plan and permit and the defendant corporation while granting the permission has insisted the plaintiff to surrender a portion of land for road widening purpose and plaintiff surrendered an extent of 11.88 sq.mtrs to the corporation and after road widening the plaintiff has started the construction in an area of 185.72 sq.yds after intimating orally to the corporation. Further submitted that the defendant officials were frequently inspecting the on going construction work and never raised any objection of any kind and while the matter being so, the defendant officials all of sudden on 12.11.2012 have illegally tried to interfere with the construction work and tried to demolish the structures in the suit property. The plaintiff resisted their acts with great difficulty with the help of his sons and workers. It is submitted that the construction is not causing any nuisance to anybody and same is within the four boundaries of the suit **3** O.S.NO.2599 OF 2012 property and defendant is under legal obligation to issue notices as per the provisions of HMC Act and give a fair chance of hearing to plaintiff and then to proceed before undertaking any demolition and in the instant case not served any notices to the plaintiff and again on 17.11.2012 the defendant officials visited the suit premises and tried to demolish the structures but the plaintiff resisted their acts with the help of his sons and in view of malafide acts of defendant officials and due to urgency the issuance of mandatory notice 

U/S 685 of HMC Act is not necessary and plaintiff filed the present suit without issuing any notice U/S 685 of HMC Act.

3.The defendant corporation filed written statement in which denied all the allegations and averments made against the defendant corporation and submits that plaintiff be put to strict proof of ownership over the suit schedule property. Further submitted that plaintiff obtained permission for construction of ground plus first floor vide permit No.11893/DC/CZ/Cir­ 10/2012 dated 08.06.2012 and plaintiff proceeded with the construction work without issuing notice U/S 440 of HMC Act prior to commencement of the construction. The plaintiff further did not leave the setbacks of the building as per the sanctioned plan and illegally constructed 2nd floor without prior permission from the defendant corporation. Defendant corporation officials denies the interference on the alleged dates and that it is also submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of notice U/S 685 of HMC Act.

**4** O.S.NO.2599 OF 2012

4.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 U/S 685 of HMC 

Act?

iii. To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of defendant, defendant reported no evidence and no documents were marked.

6.Heard both sides.

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

It is admitted fact that the plaintiff obtained permission from GHMC for construction of ground plus first floor vide permit No.11893/DC/CZ/Cir­ 10/2012 dated 08.06.2012. It was also admitted fact that the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property. Now the point is whether the plaintiff established his case that he is making construction in accordance with the sanction plan and the defendant corporation officials have been illegally interfering with the schedule of property without following due process of law. 

To establish the case of plaintiff, plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and 

Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of Sale Deed, Ex.A2 is original demand notice, Ex.A3 is the copy of sanction plan and Ex.A3 is the **5** O.S.NO.2599 OF 2012 permit. During the cross examination except denials nothing was elicited from the witness. He denied the entire case of defendant corporation. On behalf of defendant corporation did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence before this court. As earlier stated that there is no dispute with regard to the plaintiff permission obtained from GHMC for construction of ground plus first floor in the suit property. According to the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff he categorically stated that he is making construction as per sanction plan only. The defendant corporation has taken a plea that the plaintiff did not maintain any setback as insisted in the sanction plan and illegally and unauthorisedly constructed 2nd floor without prior permission. Except the pleadings the defendant corporation did not choose to file any oral or documentary evidence to establish the alleged illegal construction in the suit schedule property. It is well settled law that the pleadings of the parties have no evidensiary value. Since it is admitted fact that the plaintiff obtained permission from GHMC for construction of ground plus first floor in the suit schedule property. If plaintiff made any deviation or any illegal construction, it is obligation on the part of defendant officials to initiate action against the plaintiff by following due process of law. So the entire case of the plaintiff remained unrebuttable. The plaintiff established his case.

Hence issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant corporation.

**6** O.S.NO.2599 OF 2012

8.ISSUE NO.2: Whether the suit is bad for non issuance of notice U/S 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 plaintiff submitted that he has 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.

9.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.

**7** O.S.NO.2599 OF 2012

In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiffs for ground plus first floor for residential purpose as per the sanction plan within the sanctioned area 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 work of the plaintiff or demolishing of the suit property or any part of the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff. 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 to dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24thday of March, 2014.

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined: FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: NONE. PW1: Somadri Anjaiah DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Certified copy of Sale Deed.

Ex.A2Original demand notice.

Ex.A3Copy of sanction plan.

Ex.A4Copy of permit.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

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

HYDERBAD

MONDAY Dated the 24 th Day of MARCH, 2014.

PRESENT: SMT. T. JAYALAKSHMI, B.COM., M.L.,

VI Junior Civil Judge

O.S.NO.2453 of 2012

Between:

1. N. Sadanand S/o N. Mallesham, Aged about 40 years, Occ: business, R/o H.No.12­1­615/2 & 2/A, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

2. N. Anand S/o N. Mallesham, Aged about 36 years, Occ: business, R/o H.No.12­1­615/2 & 2/A,

Asifnagar, Hyderabad. ....Plaintiffs.

And

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Having its Head Office at Municipal Complex, 

Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. ...Defendant.

This suit is coming on 21.03.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Achutham Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri P.H.P. Sai, Standing counsel for GHMC/Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by plaintiffs seeking to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant municipality, and its men from interfering with the possession or demolishing of the suit property or any part of it belonging to the plaintiffs in any manner and costs of the suit.

2.The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

Plaintiff submitted that they are the absolute owners and possessors of **2** O.S.NO.2453 OF 2012 the house property bearing No.12­1­615/2 & 2/A admeasuring 260 sq.yds situated at Asifnagar, Hyderabad and submits that originally their father had acquired the suit schedule property by way of purchase under Registered Sale 

Deed dated 05.02.1993 bearing document No.2351/1994 and their father died on 01.10.2008 leaving plaintiffs as legal heirs to the suit schedule property and since then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and their names were recorded in the municipal records and also paying the electricity charges and also paying property tax to the concerned departments and while the thing so, the suit schedule property having a house which was constructed long back and became very old and cracks are effected to the said building, therefore to give good shape and strengthen the entire schedule property by way of internal and external repairs such as plastering and colouring etc, the plaintiffs approached the defendant corporation office for obtaining permission for making repairs and they informed to him that the permission is not required for repairs as per the Rule 3.5 of Building Bye laws of HMC Act and after that the plaintiffs was making the repairs and all of sudden on 26.10.2012 the defendant officials came and tried to demolish the structure without giving any notice U/s 461, 452 and 636 of HMC Act and give fair chance of hearing to the plaintiffs and then to proceed as per the provisions of HMC Act before undertaking the demolition and with utmost difficulty their acts and again they came to the schedule property on 30.10.2012 and with utmost difficulty the plaintiffs could resist their illegal acts and so that the suit was filed without issuing notice U/S 685 of HMC Act as the acts of the defendant officials are malafide and filed the **3** O.S.NO.2453 OF 2012 suit.

3.The defendant corporation filed the written statement denying the ownership and possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and denied that the plaintiffs was not making any repairs and constructing illegally new construction in the open plot and illegally and unauthorisedly erected columns and laid RCC roof slab for ground floor and first floor without leaving any setbacks nor all around open spaces required as per the 

G.O. and plaintiffs have not informed the defendant corporation the commencement of construction prior or starting of construction U/S 440 of 

HMC Act and denies the alleged visits to the suit schedule property and defendant officials immediately issued notices U/S 452(1) and 461(1) of HMC 

Act on 25.10.2012 and notice U/s 452(2) of HMC Act dated 01.11.2012 but plaintiffs failed to give reply and further contended that the suit is bad for non issuance of the notice U/s 685 of HMC Act and hence the suit may be dismissed.

4.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 U/S 685 of HMC 

Act?

iii. To what relief?

**4** O.S.NO.2453 OF 2012

5.On behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A3 got marked. On behalf of defendant, defendant reported no evidence and no documents got marked.

6.Heard both sides.

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

The title and possession of plaintiffs was denied. Exs.A1 is the death certificate of father of plaintiffs, Ex.A2 are four electricity bills and Ex.A3 is the property demand notice establishes the plaintiffs possession over the suit schedule property. It is the plea of the plaintiffs that while they have been making repairs to the existing structure the defendant officials illegally interfered with the suit schedule building. Under bye­law 3.5 of building Bye­ laws no permission is required for making repairs. The defendant corporation alleged that the plaintiffs has been making illegally new construction in the open plot and illegally and unauthorisedly erected columns and laid RCC roof slab for ground floor and first floor without leaving any setbacks nor all around open spaces required as per the G.O. So it is burden on the defendant corporation to establish that the plaintiffs have made illegal and unauthorised construction on the suit schedule property. As already said the defendant corporation did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence before this court to establish the alleged illegal construction. It is well settled law that the pleadings of parties have no evidensiary value. In the instant case there is no material to show that the illegal construction is said to be raised by the **5** O.S.NO.2453 OF 2012 plaintiffs except the suggestions made by learned defendant counsel. By marking Exs.A1 to A3 and oral evidence the plaintiffs proved their case. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced to disprove the case of the plaintiffs by the defendant.

Under the circumstances of the case, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant corporation.

8.ISSUE NO.2: Whether the suit is bad for non issuance of notice U/S 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. As discussed in issue No.1 the defendant corporation did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to show that they have issued notice contemplated under HMC Act before initiating action of demolition against the plaintiffs construction. So it is established that the defendant corporation acted **6** O.S.NO.2453 OF 2012 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 plaintiffs and against the defendant corporation.

9.ISSUE NO.3:To what relief?

Since issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the 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 for suit schedule property as per the sale deed dt.5.2.1993 vide document No.2351/1994 restraining the defendant municipality, its officials, subordinates, employees or any person or persons claiming through or acting under it from interfering with the possession or demolishing of the suit schedule property or any part of it belonging to the plaintiffs in any manner. However if there is any new construction as alleged by the defendant over suit schedule property, the defendant is at liberty to proceed against plaintiffs construction by following due process of law.

Typed to dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of March, 2014.

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

**7** O.S.NO.2453 OF 2012

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined: FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT: NONE. PW1: N. Sadanand DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Death certificate of father of plaintiffs.

Ex.A2Original four electricity bills.

Ex.A3Original property demand notice.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:

NIL

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

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

HYDERBAD

THURSDAY Dated the 27 th Day of MARCH, 2014.

PRESENT: SMT. T. JAYALAKSHMI, B.COM., M.L.,

VI Junior Civil Judge

O.S.NO.2316 OF 2012

Between: Siddam Surya Prakash S/o Late Siddam Pullaiah, Aged about 52 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o 18­5­836 to 838, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff.

A N D 

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Having its Head Office at Municipal Complex,

Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. ...Defendant

This suit is coming on 27­03­2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Uma Maheshwar, Advocate for plaintiff and of Smt. P. Vimala Devi, Standing counsel for GHMC/Defendant 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 and its men from interfering in any manner or demolishing any part of the suit property either in whole or in part and costs of the suit.

2.The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

Plaintiff submits that he is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property which was acquired through registered Sale Deed vide document No.5971/2008 dated 27.08.2008 to an extent of 182 sq.yds and 

**2** O.S.NO.2316 OF 2012

after purchase with a view develop the property the plaintiff approached the defendant corporation for permission for construction of ground and first floor for residential purpose and after due scrutiny of all the documents the defendant corporation has granted permission for construction of ground and first floors vide permit No.9883/DC/SZ/Cir­4/2012 dated 04.04.2012 and the plaintiff commenced the construction work strictly in accordance with the municipal plan by intimating about the commencement of the construction to the defendant corporation orally and while the construction was going on the defendant officials inspected the suit construction and never raised any objection and all of sudden on 9.10.12 the defendant officials visited the suit premises and illegally tried to interfere with the construction work and to demolish the structure without assigning any reasons and without issuing any notice and the plaintiff resisted the illegal actions of the officials of the defendant with the assistance of his family members and labour and the acts of the defendant officials are malafide and so that the notice under Section 685 of HMC Act is not issued and hence this suit.

3.The defendant corporation filed written statement by admitting that the plaintiff obtained permission for construction of ground and first floor for residential purpose vide permit No. 9883/DC/SZ/Cir­4/2012 dated 04.04.2012 and contended that no notice was issued prior to the commencement of the construction and the construction was not made in accordance with the sanction plan by not leaving setbacks on all sides and also raised columns for second floor and so that the defendant officials has 

**3** O.S.NO.2316 OF 2012

issued a notice U/S 452(1) and 461(1) of HMC Act on 17.10.2012 and the plaintiff received the said notice and not submitted any reply and filed the suit by suppressing true facts and without giving the notice U/s 685 of HMC Act and that the defendant further denied alleged interference dated 09.10.2012 and that it is also submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of notice U/S 685 of HMC Act.

4.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 U/S 685 of HMC 

Act?

iii. To what relief?

5.On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A3 got marked. On behalf of defendant, defendant reported no evidence and no documents got marked.

6.Heard both sides.

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

It is admitted fact that the plaintiff obtained permission from GHMC for construction of ground and first floors for residential purpose vide permit 

No.9883/DC/SZ/Cir­4/2012 dated 04.04.2012. It was also admitted fact that 

**4** O.S.NO.2316 OF 2012

the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property. Now the point is whether the plaintiff established his case that he is making construction in accordance with the sanction plan and the defendant corporation officials have been illegally interfering with the schedule of property without following due process of law. To establish the case of plaintiff, plaintiff himself was examined as PW1. During the cross examination except denials nothing was elicited from the witness. He denied the entire case of defendant corporation. 

On behalf of defendant corporation did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence before this court. As earlier stated that there is no dispute with regard to the plaintiff permission obtained from GHMC for construction of ground and first floor for residential purpose in the suit property. According to the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff he categorically stated that he is making construction as per sanction plan only. The defendant corporation has taken a plea that the plaintiff's construction was not made in accordance with the sanction plan by not leaving setbacks on all sides and also raised columns for second floor. Except the pleadings the defendant corporation did not choose to file any oral or documentary evidence to establish the alleged illegal construction in the suit schedule property. It is well settled law that the pleadings of the parties have no evidensiary value. Since it is admitted fact that the plaintiff obtained permission from GHMC for construction of ground plus first floor. If plaintiff made any deviation or made any illegal construction, it is obligation on the part of defendant officials to initiate action against the plaintiff by following due process of law. So the entire case of the plaintiff is remained unrebuttable. The plaintiff proved his case by examining 

**5** O.S.NO.2316 OF 2012

himself as PW1 and by marking Exs.A1 to A3, certified copy of Sale Deed, permit and sanction plan.

Hence issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant corporation.

8.ISSUE NO.2: Whether the suit is bad for non issuance of notice U/S 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 plaintiff submitted that he has 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. As discussed in issue No.1 the defendant corporation did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to show that they have issued notice contemplated under HMC Act 

before initiating action of demolition against the plaintiff construction. So 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.2316 OF 2012

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.

9.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 ground plus first floor for residential purpose as per the sanction plan within the sanctioned area 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 suit 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 construction by following due process of law.

Typed to dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th day of March, 2014.

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined: FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: NONE. PW1: Siddam Surya Prakash

**7** O.S.NO.2316 OF 2012

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 27.08.2008

Ex.A2 Copy of permit.

Ex.A3Copy of sanction plan.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.