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. 27229 of 2003 Between: A. Sailaja Venugopal, W/o. A. Venugopal, Occ: Business, Proprietrix Saitheertha Builders, Flat no. 601, Jasmine Aparment, D.No. 50-50-37/21, B.S. Layout, Seethammadhara Post, Visakhapatnam - 13. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakapatnam. 2 M. Tata Babu S/o. Appala Swamy Flat No.108, Theerthu Towers, Sector X, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam 3 G.V.S. Gnaneshwar S/o. Rama Murthy Flat No.501, Theerthu Towers, Sector X, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam 4 Jella Stalin S/o. Vasantha Rao Flat No.404, Theerthu Towers, Sector X, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam 5 P.Vijayakumari Parvatha Vardhani W/o.Balasubrahmanyam ( GPA Holder) Flat No.313, Theerthu Towers, Sector X, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam 6 R. Uma Devi W/o. Murali Flat No.107, Theerthu Towers, Sector X, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam 7 S.V.Lakshmi W/o. Uma Maheswara Rao Flat No.405, Theerthu Towers, Sector X, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam 8 Gaddam Girija (rep.by GPA Holder G.P.Kumar) W/o. Pradyumnakumar Flat No.407, Theerthu Towers, Sector X, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam 9 T. Saraswathi W/o. Uma Maheswara Rao Flat No.307, Theerthu Towers, Sector X, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam ( R2 toR9 impleaded as per Court order, dt.9-6-2006, in WPMP 9208 of 2006) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27229 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner’s grievance is that the 1st respondent- Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam, is seeking to demolish her residential flat on the purported ground of violation of sanctioned plan, without following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), which was adopted by the 1st respondent’s Corporation. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is inter alia averred that the petitioner deviated from the sanctioned plan and raised R.C.C. pillars over the 4th floor unauthorizedly and that a notice under Section 452 of the Act was issued on 03.06.2003. It is further averred that the petitioner failed to comply with the said notice and instead started proceeding with the further construction and that, in view of the same, the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner was removed departmentally on 24.12.2003. From the abovementioned averments contained in the counter, it is evident that the structures raised by the petitioner in deviation from the sanctioned plan have been removed after issuing notice under Section 452 of the Act. The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit controverting the allegation that he raised the structures, which were removed by the respondent, in deviation from the sanctioned plan. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, who evidently raised the structures contrary to the sanctioned plan. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the 1st respondent cannot remove the further structures raised by the petitioner without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that as the offending structures were already removed, the Corporation will not take further steps to remove the existing structure, unless it finds that such structures are constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan, and in such an event, the Corporation will follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 452 and 636 of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of placing on record the above stand of the learned Standing Counsel. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 26.02.2009 v v