IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2901 of 2004 Between: 1 Smt. Thida Appala Narsamma @ Parvathi W/o late Siva Rao rep by their GPA Holder Sri paila Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o late P. Appala Naidu, R/o D. No. 49-27-19, Madhurangar Visakhapatnam 2 Thida Narayana S/o late Siva Rao rep by their GPA Holder Sri paila Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o late P. Appala Naidu, R/o D. No. 49-27-19, Madhurangar Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 State Andhra Pradesh, rep by Secretary, Muncipal Administration and Urban Development, Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.SOMESWARA KUMAR Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for Respondent No.2: SRI N.RANGA REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF VISAKHAPATNAM The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2901 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in seeking to demolish the construction made on plot No. LIG-A-73, T.S.No.6, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, without passing final orders in pursuance of notice dated 22.12.2003, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Heard Sri K.Someshwar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Under permission dated 23.12.2002, the petitioners claim to have raised construction on the plot belonging to them. On 22.12.2003, respondent No.2 served a notice on the petitioners alleging that they have commenced the construction without issuing notice for commencement of work as required under Section 440 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and that the petitioners made constructions by deviating from the approved plan. The petitioners claimed that they have given appropriate reply to the said notice. The grievance of the petitioners is that though more than 30 days elapsed from the date of issue of notice, no orders were passed by respondent No.2, but suddenly on 13.02.2004, his subordinates came to the building and threatened to demolish the structure. Therefore, they filed the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, he has enumerated various alleged deviations in construction of building by the petitioners. It is averred therein that, after receipt of notice issued under Section 452 of the Act on 06.01.2004, the petitioners unauthorisedly raised R.C.C. columns on the top slab of the second floor with a view to construct third floor with the same alignment of ground, first and second floors, which were constructed in deviation from the sanctioned plan. The respondents, however, denied the allegation that they have threatened to remove the deviated portion of the structure without following due process by issuing a final notice under Section 636 of the Act. Since the respondents have taken the plea that they will follow the procedure of issuing notice under Section 636 of the Act before taking steps for demolishing structure raised allegedly in deviation of the sanctioned plan, the writ petition is disposed of by placing the said statement contained in the counter affidavit on record. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 26.02.2009 v v