THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 30907 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the Notice dated 14.11.2011 issued under Section 401 of the H.M.C. Act (for short, ‘the Act’) issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner’s family to remove construction on NTS No.43 in 3 days as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. 2. Case of the petitioner may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the owner of house bearing No.24- 14-52/A, Durgapuram, Vijayawada having got the same from his mother by way of gift settlement deed. Family of petitioner constructed the house in the year 1973 and has been residing therein. Earlier, the respondent had issued a notice dated 26.12.2007 under Section 434 of the Act calling upon to submit ownership documents, and accordingly, petitioner’s family submitted explanation along with copy of registered sale deed and approved building plan. Mother of petitioner filed Writ Petition No.144 of 2008 challenging the action of the respondent seeking to demolish compound wall raised by the petitioner’s family on southern side of the house without passing orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the notice under Section 434 of the Act, and the respondent filed counter affidavit in the said Writ Petition stating inter alia that on a complaint that public road was closed by the petitioner, the respondent initiated enquiry and issued the notice and that no decision had yet taken in pursuance of the said notice and that if the corporation found that the petitioner is in occupation of public road, the corporation would follow due process of law. After recording the submissions, the Writ Petition was disposed of on 29.6.2011. But, the respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner’s family, issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner’s family to remove the constructions within 3 days. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. G.Jhansi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The impugned notice was issued by the respondent stating that the petitioner allegedly encroached into the road and made construction of bath room and lavatory. It is the case of the petitioner is that he obtained construction permission vide proceedings in Rc. G5- B.A.No.1063/77, dated 5.5.1978 of the respondent, for making constructions. As seen from the plan annexed to the permission, which was not filed along with the material papers in the Writ Petition and presented by the counsel for the petitioner before this court, it would go to show that the plan was approved subject to the conditions specified in the construction permission. Therefore, if the building is constructed in accordance with the approved plan, the respondent has no authority to demolish any structures. But, the respondent is at liberty to demolish any construction if made contrary to the approved plan after following due process of law. 5. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 22.11.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 30907 OF 2011 22.11.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 30907 OF 2011 DATED 22.11.2011 Between: S.Srinivas Rao …Petitioner And The Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada. …Respondent