THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.30424 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing order, dated 31-10-2011 and serving the same along with notice on the same day (i.e., 11-11-2011) and without considering objections of the petitioners trying to demolish the building situated in D.No.2-1-26/2 is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.423, dated 13-07-1998 and consequently direct the respondent not to demolish the building without considering their objections. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors and enjoyers of the schedule land situated at D.No.2-1-26/2 admeasuring Ac.0.18 cents and D.No.2-1-26/2 to the extent of Ac.0.18 cents respectively, having purchased the same from A.Venkata Ratnam and A. Janardhana Nagasiva Prasad under registered sale deeds, dated 23-05- 2011. As they intended to construct a building, they approached the concerned authorities for permission, who in turn advised them no permission was necessary as per G.O.Ms.No.423, dated 13-07-1998 and accordingly, they undertaken constructions. While the construction is going on, the authorities visited the site and asked to get permission. Though they are entitled to get exemption as per the said G.O. in order to avoid any further complications, they applied for permission by paying necessary fee and filing requisite documents on 05-11-2011. While the matter stood thus, the respondent served notices i..e, one provisional notice under Section 228 (1) and another notice under Section 228 (3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 24-09-2011 and dated 31-10-2011 respectively, which were served on 11-11-2011, whereunder they threatened to demolish the building. As the schedule land is only comes to an extent of Ac.0.36 cents, they are squarely covered by the said G.O. Though they filed objections for the notices, they are reluctant to receive the same. When the application seeking necessary permission for the building is under active consideration, the respondent should not be allowed to demolish the building that too, in view of G.O. they are entitled to exemption. Therefore, the action of the respondent in issuing notice under Section 228 (3) of the Act is illegal. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were orally informed that there is no need for obtaining any permission for construction of a house as the site in question is less than 100 square yards and therefore, they started construction, that thereafter, a notice was issued on 24-09-2011 stating that the constructions are being made contrary to rules, that thereafter petitioners filed application along with the plan with requisite building fee, but without considering the same, the respondent is trying to demolish the structures and hence, he prays to give a direction to the respondent not to remove the constructions. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent contended that in view of the fact that the building sanction plan is under consideration with the respondent, the respondent will take appropriate decision. 5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The petitioners said to have constructed the building without there being any sanctioned plan under the impression that no such permission is required as the site in question is less than 100 square yards. But, however, in pursuance of the notice issued by the respondent on 24-09-2011, the petitioners said to have made application for sanction of plan as per the building rules and the same is under consideration by the respondent. The respondent has to take appropriate decision on the plan submitted by the petitioners. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to take appropriate decision on the application for sanction of plan within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till then the building bearing Door No.2-1-26/2 shall not be demolished. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 16-11-2011 Hsd