IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8859 of 2003 Between: KANNAYAGARI ADINARAYANA REDDY S/O. NARAYANA REDDY, H.NO. 1/440(1), MARUTHI NAGAR, CUDDAPAH ..... PETITIONER AND 1 THE CUDDAPAH MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMSSIONER, CUDDAPAH 2 THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CUDDAPAH MUNICIPALITY, CUDDAPAH 3 THE MUNICIPAL SURVEYOR CUDDAPAH MUNICIPALITY, CUDDAPAH .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in taking steps to demolish the house of the petitioner bearing No. 1/440(1), Maruthi Nagar, Cuddapah District, without passing any written orders against the petitioner herein by 1st respondent basing on the oral directions is illegal, void and opposed to Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to demolish the petitioner house without following due process of law Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.8859 of 2003 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 2 and 3 in taking steps to demolish his house bearing No. 1/440(1), situated at Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner has constructed the aforesaid house by obtaining necessary permission from the 1st respondent-Municipality. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without issuing any notice and opportunity to him, steps are being taken to demolish his house. It is stated that in the year 2002, a notice was issued under Section 228 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for brevity ‘the Act’), alleging that the petitioner has constructed the building in deviation to the sanctioned plan and the petitioner has filed his explanation, and thereafter, no orders are passed and communicated to the petitioner. 3. Precisely, it is the grievance of the petitioner that in the absence of any order for demolition, and without any prior opportunity and notice to him, the respondents are taking steps for demolition of his house. 4. At the stage of admission, by interim order, dated 06-05-2003, this Court has stayed the demolition without following due process of law. 5. Though the writ petition is of the year 2003, no counter affidavit is filed so far. There is also no representation on behalf of the respondent-Municipality. 6. In the absence of any counter affidavit contraverting the allegations of the petitioner, and also taking into account the interim orders passed by this Court on 06-05-2003, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents not to take any steps for demolition of the house of the petitioner bearing Door No.1/440(1) situated at Maruthi Nagar, Cuddapah District, as otherwise then due process of law. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner has constructed any portion of his house in deviation to the sanctioned plan by encroaching upon the land of the Municipality, it is open for the respondent-Municipality to take steps for its demolition, by issuing necessary notice and by providing opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ 1st July 2009 KVR