IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27006 of 2008 Between: Chunchu Radha Rani W/o. Narasimha Rao R/o. 3-1-220, K.T. Road, Chitti Nagar, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Commissioner Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The City Planner & Town Planning Officer Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Building Inspector Office of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularity one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the house bearing No. 3-1-220 of the petitioner with out issuing any notice or without following due process of legal procedure of acquisition by declaring their action in not considering petitioner representation dt. 21-11-2008 to regularize petitioner house is being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAMANA ALLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.G.JHANSI The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that she is the owner of an extent of 486 square yards of land in R.S.No.20 situated in Vidhyadharapuram Village, Vijayawada, wherein she built a thatched House, but it was collapsed due to floods. Later, as she came to know that her land is covered under Urban Land Ceiling, she paid fee of Rs.8,03,670/- to the Government on 8.8.2008 towards regularization of the land. While so, she built a House bearing No.3-1-220 with R.C.C. roof and submitted a representation, dated 21.11.2008 to the 1st respondent-Municipal Commissioner, seeking approval of the construction of the House in question. Now, the petitioner’s main grievance is that the respondents, without issuing any notice nor considering her representation, are trying to demolish her House. Challenging the action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. From a perusal of the petitioner’s representation it is evident that the petitioner, without obtaining prior permission from the 1st respondent- Commissioner, proceeded with the construction of the House with R.C.C roof, and thereafter, made the representation for approval of that construction. As this Court is not inclined to express any opinion on merits of the case, it deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction. “The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 21.11.2008 and pass appropriate orders thereon strictly in accordance with law. ”. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ______________ 11.12.2008 bcj