THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17039 of 2011 Date:19.09.2011 Between: Matta Suryakumari ..... Petitioners AND Ramachandrapuram Municipality, Reptd by Its Commissioner, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Sri T.Bheemanna For Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, Standing Counsel for Municipality Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4: Sri T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the petitioner’s building comprising ground floor + first floor, vide D.No.15-1-25, Main Road, Ward No.11, Ramachandrapuram, in the guise of notice and provisional order issued under Section 228 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of first floor as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents not to proceed with S.T.C.No.14 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, without rejecting the petitioner’s application for building permission, dated 30.11.2009. In the manner the Writ Petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. It will suffice to note that the petitioner claimed to have submitted an application for grant of building permission on 30.11.2009 by paying necessary building fees. It is her further case that as the said application was not disposed of within the statutory period, a right has got accrued to her to construct the building by invoking the deeming provision under Section 214 of the Act. When the provisional order and final order under Sections 228(2) and 228(3) of the Act, respectively, were issued by the respondents-Municipality, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is inter alia stated that the building application filed by the petitioner was returned with an endorsement that she failed to show the details of the road widening portion and the same was handed over to the Citizen’s Charter counter on 09.12.2009. However, it is admitted that the petitioner has not constructed the building on the road margin or joint passage and that the Municipality has initiated action against the unauthorised constructions taken up by the petitioner and issued notice as per the provisions of Section 228 of the Act, but not for making any encroachment. The petitioner has filed a reply-affidavit. She has denied return of her building application. She also submitted that as she has not approached the respondents- Municipality for building permission through Citizen’s Charter, purported return of application through the Citizen’s Charter cannot be countenanced in law. Sri T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, representing the impleaded respondents, who are the neighbours to the petitioner’s house, submitted that even assuming that there is deeming provision, the petitioner failed to construct the house in accordance with the plan submitted by her. He has placed before the Court along with the implead application a copy of the plan submitted by the petitioner, the authenticity of which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Municipality ought to have returned the application to the petitioner instead of purporting to hand over the same to the Citizen Charter. Therefore, it is deemed that the application of the petitioner was not refused and the right to construct the building strictly in accordance with the plan submitted by her has accrued to her as per Section 24 of the Act. Unless the petitioner has constructed the house in deviation of the plan submitted by her, the respondents-Municipality cannot take any action against the constructions raised by her only on the ground that she has not obtained building permission. In this view of the matter, respondent No.1 is directed to verify the plan submitted by the petitioner with reference to the constructions raised by her. If the plan is not available with the Citizen’s Charter, the copy of the plan filed by the impleaded respondents in this Writ Petition may be taken as the plan submitted by the petitioner and examine the constructions with reference to the said plan as to whether the petitioner has raised the constructions in accordance therewith. If it is found that the petitioner raised constructions in deviation of the plan submitted her by her, fresh notice under Section 228(1) of the Act along with the provisional order shall be served on her within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Conversely, if respondent No.1 is satisfied that the constructions are raised by the petitioner without deviation, further action shall be dropped. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.20468 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief and W.V.M.P.(SR).No.10128 of 2011 filed by the impleaded respondents are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th September 2011 DR