HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.8951 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri N. Ravi Prasad, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Ranga Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. At their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to declare the action of the respondent-Corporation in attempting to demolish the construction made by him in 310 sq. yards on site bearing No.9-9-47 in T.S.No.47/1 of Mohan Residency, Sivajipalem, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the owner and to be in possession of an extent of 310 sq. yards of site bearing No.9-9-47 in T.S.No.47/1 of Mohan Residency, Sivajipalem, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam; he had submitted an application for sanction of building plan; on 20.01.2009 the respondent had accorded sanction for construction of stilt floor + ground floor + two upper floors; he had constructed a residential complex in accordance with the approved plan; he had sold the flats to different purchasers who had taken possession thereof; and the officials of the respondent-Corporation had gone over to the building in question and had threatened to demolish the deviations in construction even though no such deviations existed as he had constructed the building strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Reference is made to an incident, on 13.04.2010, wherein the officials of the respondent-Corporation had gone over to the building in question along with their men and machinery to demolish the same and, due to intervention of the elders in the vicinity, the respondent-Corporation was prevented from doing so. Sri N. Ranga Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, on instructions, would submit that all that the respondent-Corporation did was to inspect the building and ascertain whether or not there were any deviations in Construction and that the respondent- Corporation would only take action for demolition after issuing notice under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and, thereafter, under Section 636 of the Act. In view of the submission made by the Learned Standing Counsel, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent-Corporation not to interfere with the petitioner’s construction in any manner as long as the construction is strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. If the respondent-Corporation were to notice any deviations it is open to them to issue notice under Section 452 of the Act and, if need be, thereafter to issue the notice under Section 636 of the Act, as extended to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, and take action in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:21.04.2010 Note:Wire at party’s cost bo Usd