THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16677 OF 2010 Date: 19.07.2010 Between: Smt. M.Rajeswari ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:- THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16677 of 2010 O R D E R : The petitioner claims title and possession in respect of house bearing No.64-1-51 in ward No.46, Srihari Puram, Visakhapatnam. It is stated that the said house has been in possession and enjoyment of their family for the last 40 years and all relevant taxes are being paid to the 1st respondent. The said house is also provided the electricity connection by the Transmission Corporation long back. While so, the officials of the respondents attempted to demolish the house in question in the month of May, 2010. Questioning the said action, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10917 of 2010 and the same was disposed of by this Court by order dated 05.05.2010 directing that if the constructions were sought to be demolished by the respondents they should follow due process of law. It is stated that on 12.07.2010 a notice dated 09.07.2010 was served on the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to remove the constructions within three days alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon gedda portion and raised thatched hut. It is also stated that a complaint was received from the residents of ward No.46 of Sriharipuram during Prajapatham programme of the MLA. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed contending inter alia that the impugned action of the respondents in proposing to demolish the petitioner’s house without giving any opportunity to explain the allegations as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the impugned notice dated 09.07.2010, the same was issued under Section 405 and 406 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon gedda portion and raised the constructions unauthorisedly. It was also stated in the impugned notice that though the said constructions were removed departmentally on 29.04.2010, the petitioner had again erected the same during the night of 13.05.2010 under the guise of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.10917 of 2010. Thus, the petitioner was called upon to remove the structure within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation sought to justify the impugned action stating that as the structure was raised on a drainage channel blocking the flow of water and a complaint was received from the local residents, action was rightly taken for removal of the unauthorized constructions without notice as per Section 405 of the Act. There can be no dispute that Section 405 of the Act empowers the respondents-Corporation to remove any wall, fence, rail, post, step, booth or other structure of a permanent or a temporary nature without notice. However, as explained by a Division Bench of this Court in M Raj Kumar and others vs. The Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad Dist., Hyderabad and others[1], such action under Section 405 of the Act is contemplated where the situation brooks no delay and where there is a clear element of urgency involved in the matter. According to the petitioner, the house was constructed long ago and the same was allotted a municipal number and the electricity was also provided by the Transmission Corporation long ago. It is also not disputed before this Court that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.10917 of 2010 in which there was a direction not to demolish the property without following due process of law. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the respondents were not justified in directing removal of the petitioner’s house without issuing a prior notice. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of making it clear that the impugned notice shall be treated as a show cause notice and permitting the petitioner to submit her explanation to the same within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter the respondents-Corporation shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the explanation of the petitioner. No costs. ​ ____________ Date: 19.07.2010 G. ROHINI, J Note: Issue CC of order in three days (B/o) Ivd [1] 1991 (1) A.L.T. 653