HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.17405 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the rights of the petitioner in her property bearing H.No.6-3-840/C/1 situated at Ameerpet, Hyderabad, by issuing notice under Section 636 of Greater Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) without issuing show cause notice as contemplated under Section 452 of the Act and not following the due procedure as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice apart from being in violation of the provisions of the Act and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s right in the said property. 2. Heard. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing H.No.6-3-840/C/1, situated at Ameerpet, Hyderabad, by virtue of registered gift settlement deed dated 23.12.2004, and since then she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property without any hindrance from any quarters; that the petitioner with an intention to construct a residential building, has submitted an application to the Corporation for sanction of building plan on 5.10.2010; that when the Corporation officials failed to grant permission within the stipulated time, the petitioner started construction after intimating the respondents vide letter dated 16.11.2010 under Section 440 of the Act about the commencement of construction; that when the 1st respondent corporation officials threatened for demolition of the structures without issuing any notice, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.154 of 2011 on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for permanent injunction and obtained interim order on 28.1.2011 in I.A.No.28 of 2011 restraining the 1st respondent from interfering with the rights of the petitioner; that while things stood thus, the respondents without even issuing the preliminary notice as contemplated under the Act, issued final notice and started interfering with the rights of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit denying all the averments mentioned in the writ petition and stated that a notice under Section 452 of the Act has been issued to the petitioner on 20.11.2010; that one Sri N. Suresh Kumar Yadav and others filed a W.P.No.11647 of 2011 before this Court and this Court has directed the respondents to take appropriate action against the construction made by the petitioner; that the application for sanction of building permission of the petitioner was rejected vide its proceedings dated 23.10.2010; that without any sanctioned plan and permission of the respondents, the petitioner cannot rely herself on the submitted plan; that on receiving the notice issued by the petitioner dated 16.11.2010 under Section 437 of the Act, the respondents inspected the site and stopped the construction; that the respondents are not interested in any civil disputes between the petitioner and others, but the corporation will take action as per rules after following due process of law against the unauthorized construction being made by the petitioner in violation of rules after the disposal of the court cases including the present writ petition; that as the construction is in deviation even to the submitted plans and in violation of rules, the respondents issued the impugned notice to the petitioner and hence prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without issuing a notice as contemplated under the Act, the respondents are trying to interfere with the rights of the petitioner in respect of the constructions of the building and that the petitioner has not received a notice under Section 452 of the Act and therefore he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that a notice under Section 452 of the Act has been received by the petitioner and no reply was sent to the notice and hence, the application submitted for sanction of plan was rejected by the corporation and hence there are no grounds to grant any relief in this writ petition and hence the same may be dismissed. 7. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner has not obtained any sanctioned plan for making constructions in the disputed site. Though it is not in dispute that the petitioner has applied for issuance of permission for sanction of building plan, it was rejected by the respondents by proceedings No.840/C/1/3/6/10 dated 23.10.2010. Inspite of rejection, the petitioner has made the constructions. Then the respondents corporation has issued a notice under Section 452 of the Act on 20.11.2010 for which no reply was given by the petitioner and hence the present final notice is issued to the petitioner on 17.6.2011 directing her to remove the above mentioned deviations made as against the sanctioned plan claimed under the deemed provision within 24 hours. Therefore, the notice dated 17.6.2011, issued by the respondents corporation, is in accordance with law and the respondents corporation has rightly given a notice to the petitioner to remove the deviations in the building and hence this Court is not inclined to interfere with the notice issued by the respondents and there are no valid grounds. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed directing the petitioner to demolish the deviations within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the respondents corporation is directed to demolish the same at the expenses of the petitioner. No costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU,J. 08.11.2011, Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.17405 OF 2011 Date:08.11.2011 Gk.