HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No: 15939 of 2009 MONDAY THE 10TH DAY OF AUGST, 2009 Between: A.V.L.P. Vardhani ..... PETITIONER AND The Govt. of A.P., Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Municipal Admn. Dept., Hyderabad and three others .....RESPONDENTs O R D E R : The petitioner asserts that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the residential House bearing No. MCH No.7-2-1786/5 & 6, Bungalow No.18, Czech Colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 26.2.2003 and also registered gift deed dated 29.01.2004. According to the petitioner, after obtaining permission from the respondent-Corporation in File No.1786/2/7/2004, dated 4.3.2004, she constructed the House in question by demolishing and removing the old structures existing therein. While so, the petitioner states that based on a frivolous complaint lodged by the 4th respondent against the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued Notice dated 28.2.2009 directing her to submit relevant documents/sanctioned plan for verification. Accordingly, she submitted her explanation with all the necessary documents for construction of the House in question. Now, it is her grievance that though she produced legal documents in proof of ownership of her property and the relevant permission for raising the building, respondent Nos.2 & 3, without looking into the same, are taking steps to demolish the building which was constructed with valid permission. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. The learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that in pursuance of the Notice dated 28.2.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has not submitted her explanation and furnished any documents to the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material placed on record. Even though the petitioner averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that in pursuance of the Notice dated 28.2.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent she submitted her explanation along with relevant documents/sanctioned plan for verification, the same is disputed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner, except making this bald statement, has not placed any material before this Court to establish that she submitted her explanation along with the required documents to the 3rd respondent as directed in the notice. However, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The petitioner is directed to submit detailed explanation to the Notice dated 28.02.2009 giving exact measurements of the site and building in question, duly enclosing the sanctioned plan and the relevant documents, which she is relying upon, to the 3rd respondent-Assistant City Planner, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such explanation along with relevant documents, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders after conducting physical survey of the property in question.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ N.V. RAMANA, J. 10th August, 2009. Note: Furnish copy in two days B/o bcj