IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.10891 of 2010 Between: Smt. Kavitha Rani Munagala ..... PETITIONER AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and another. ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition is moved as House Motion. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of plot No.27/1 and 28/part situated at Sy.No.5, 6, 7 and 8 of Madinaguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, GHMC Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 03-12- 2009. She obtained permission to construct building vide permission No.G/272/BP/1097/2009 dated 31-10-2009 to construct first and ground floor on the said plot. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the construction is under process, on 29-04-2010 the officials of first respondent visited the premises and proclaimed that they would demolish the construction. The learned counsel further submitted that the construction is being made in accordance with the building permission without any violation of the approved plan. It is further stated that the respondents cannot resort to demolition of the construction without following due process of law. 3. Heard Sri Kiran Thirumalasetti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kalpana Ekbote, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Having regard to the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, both the learned counsel agreed for the disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission itself. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the officials will not interfere with the construction, if such, construction is made in accordance with law. But at the same time the officials are within their powers to inspect and verify whether any deviations have taken place. The learned counsel further submitted that, if any, deviations is found the Corporation would follow the procedure contemplated under Sections 452 and 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and only after following such procedure, action would be taken for demolition. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, and as agreed by both the learned counsel, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to demolish the construction being undertaken by the petitioner on the plot No.27/1 and 28/part situated at Sy.No.5, 6, 7 and 8 of Madinaguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, GHMC Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District without following due process of law as enjoined under the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J May 03, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.10891 of 2010 May 03, 2010