HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.26795 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the notices dated 6.9.2011 and 12.9.2011 issued by the respondents under Sections 461(1) and 452(2) of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents and its officials not to demolish the structures raised over the schedule property situated in Sy.No.70 of Kamalanagar, Gaddi Annaram Village, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner may be stated as follows: The petitioner purchased the plot No.8(A) admeasuring 132 sq. yards under registered sale deed from Ramachandra Reddy. She also purchased a plot No.8(B) admeasuring 148 sq. yards from M.Govardhan Reddy. She applied for permission from the Gram Panchayat and constructed residential house in the year 1980 and since then she has been in absolute possession of the same. The petitioner with an intention to construct a residential building in total extent of 280 sq. yards submitted an application before the respondents for permission for construction of stilt, ground and one upper floor and the respondents after due verification of documents accorded permission on 26.9.2008 to the petitioner for construction which is valid till 29.5.2011. The petitioner commenced the construction duly intimating to the respondents as required under the Act. Now, the present notice was issued to G. Venkateswarlu calling upon him to give explanation and the respondents also issued a consequential notice under Section 452(2) of the Act on 12.9.2011 to the said G. Venkateswarlu and no notice was given to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not received any notice from the respondents and that if an opportunity is given to the petitioner, she will submit the explanation to the notice issued by the respondent. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents contended that even though the name of the petitioner is wrongly mentioned in the notice, the notice has been received by her and hence there are no grounds to allow the writ petition. 6. The petitioner is stated to be the owner of the extent of 280 sq. yards of site for which a building sanction was given for construction of stilt, ground and one upper floor. The sanction is valid till 25.9.2011. While the matter stood thus, the respondents corporation has issued a notice dated 12.9.2011 to one G. Venkateswarlu calling upon him to give an explanation. As seen from the notice dated 12.9.2011, it is clear that the name of the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned in the notice and in view of the fact that the petitioner has received the same, she can be directed to give explanation to the notice dated 12.9.2011, within a period of 10 days from today and thereafter the respondents shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. Till such time, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo existing as on today. 7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU,J. 01.11.2011, Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.26795 OF 2011 Date:01.11.2011 Gk.