IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 9141 of 2004 Between: K.Lakshmi Bai, w/o late Sharfanjee, r/o 1-7-977 to 987, Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep., by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner, Circle III, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents and their staff in taking steps to demolish the structures of the petitioners' premises bearing No.1-7-977 to 987, 987/1 to 6 situated at Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar, Hyderabad without issuing any notice and without following any procedure as contemplated under Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents and their staff not to demolish any structures of the petitioners' premises bearing No.1- 7-977 to 987, 987/1 to 6. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to declare the action of respondents in taking steps to demolish the structures belonging to her in the premises bearing No.1-7-977 to 987 and 987/1 to 6, situated at Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar, Hyderabad, without issuing any notice and without following the procedure as contemplated under law, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the house property bearing No.1-7-977 to 987 and 987/1 to 6, situated at Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar, Hyderabad, which is constructed in an area admeasuring 670 sq.yards, and she has purchased the said house property by a registered sale deed, bearing No.1590/1945. It is also the case of the petitioner that subsequent to her purchase, in the year 1945, she has constructed a house and some shops by obtaining permission vide permit No.69/1967 from the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation, and again, in the year 1979, she has constructed some more shops by obtaining permission vide permit No.8/1962, dated 04.04.1979. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the constructions made by her are in accordance with the sanctioned plan and covered by valid permits. However, the respondents are intending to take steps for demolition of the structures made by her without issuing any notice and without furnishing any information. Such action on the part of respondents is only at the instance of some local leaders, who are inimical towards her. 3. At the stage of admission, by an order, dated 18.05.2004, interim directions were issued by this Court to the respondents and their staff, not to demolish the structures in the premises bearing No.1-7-977 to 987 and 987/1 to 6, situated at Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. The said directions issued by this Court have been in force all along, and no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations of the petitioner. 4. Even for removal of any unauthorized constructions, there is a specific procedure provided under various provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’). If any construction belonging to the petitioner is to be removed, she is to be issued with a show cause notice at the first instance as provided under Section 452 of the Act. Unless such a notice is issued inviting objections from the petitioner, no steps can be taken for removal of the structures straight away. 5. Though it is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondents and their staff are visiting her site with a threat of demolition, the same is not rebutted by the respondents by filing any counter-affidavit. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents not to demolish the structures made by the petitioner, as otherwise than due process of law. If any unauthorized constructions still exist, this order will not preclude the respondents to take steps in accordance with law. 7. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd July, 2009 CBS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9141 of 2004 23rd July, 2009 CBS