GHMC may affix notices under Section 630(d) only after exhausting other prescribed modes of service.

The appellant, petitioner in W.P. No. 1829 of 2021, challenged the proposed or alleged demolition of a structure on his property, including damage to its roof, pursuant to notices issued under Sections 450, 452(1) and 461(1) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (“GHMC Act”).

He contended that a valid building permit had been issued on 18 December 2020 in respect of Plot No. 1, that the permit for Plot No. 2 was still pending, and that the action had been taken without observing natural justice.

The respondents claimed that the notices had been endorsed as “wall pasted” in accordance with Section 630(d) of the GHMC Act.

The writ court dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory procedure for service under Section 630 had been followed.

The appellant preferred the present writ appeal, denying receipt of the notices and asserting that the statutory modes of service had not been exhausted before affixture on the wall.

Whether the respondents had validly served the statutory notices under Section 630 of the GHMC Act before proceeding against the appellant’s structure.

Whether further action, including demolition-related action, could be undertaken without proper service of notice and compliance with applicable procedural safeguards.

Whether the merits of the appellant’s building-permit and alleged demolition claims required determination in the writ appeal.

Section 630 of the GHMC Act prescribes several modes of serving notices, bills, summonses and other documents; under Section 630(d), affixture on a conspicuous part of the building is permissible only when the modes contemplated under clauses (a) to (c) are unavailable.

The statutory procedure for service must therefore be followed before consequential municipal action is taken.

The Court also directed the respondents to comply with the principles and safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, In Re , (2025) 5 SCC 1, particularly paragraph 93.

The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.

The Court found that although the respondents relied on endorsements stating that the notices had been “wall pasted,” they had not disclosed whether the prior modes of service under Section 630(a)–(c) had been attempted or were unavailable, as required before invoking Section 630(d).

Since the appellant denied receiving the notices, and the statutory preconditions for affixture had not been demonstrated, the Court accepted that any further action should follow only after proper service in accordance with law.

The Court further required compliance with the Supreme Court’s demolition-related directions.

It expressly refrained from deciding the validity of the building permits, the legality of the alleged demolition, or any other merits-based contention.

The respondents were permitted to take further action only after properly serving notice on the appellant in accordance with Section 630 of the GHMC Act and complying with the Supreme Court’s directions in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures .

The appellant was directed to cooperate by accepting any notice lawfully served.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.