HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.29029 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking steps to remove the illegal construction made by the 3rd respondent in the house bearing Door No.58-4-24, Pendurthi Street, Valandapeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District, inspite of legal notice dated 31.8.2011, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Municipalities Act, and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the illegal construction and direct the 3rd respondent not to proceed with further construction in the aforesaid house. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is the absolute owner of the house bearing Door No. 58-4-24, Pendurthi Street, Valandapeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District, by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 11.11.2009, and since then, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The third respondent with the help of her husband, put up centering on the sunshade of her property on its Western side and projected the slab of her house under construction projecting up to her house wall by way of arial encroachment beyond the Western schedule of property. Coming to know about the illegal constructions, the petitioner got issued a legal notice to the respondents 1 and 2 with regard to the illegal constructions of the 3rd respondent, but the respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any action. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent is making constructions in violation of the building rules and therefore the respondents 1 and 2 have to take an appropriate action in accordance with rules and regulations of governing the building rules. and hence he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that the appropriate decision would be taken on the legal notice dated 31.8.2011 got issued by the petitioner and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. There cannot be any dispute that a building has to be constructed in accordance with the plan approved by the Corporation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is constructing the building projecting the slab in violation of the building rules. Inspite of the petitioner submitting her representation to the respondents 1 and 2 with regard to the illegal constructions of the 3rd respondent, they have not taken any action. Therefore, it is for the respondents 1 and 2 to take an appropriate action if the building is constructed by the 3rd respondent, not in accordance with the approved plan sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. 7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take an appropriate action as to whether the building that is being constructed by the 3rd respondent, is in accordance with the approved plan sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation or not, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As no adverse order is passed against the 3rd respondent, notice to her is not necessary. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU,J. 29.10.2011, Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.29029 OF 2011 Date:29.10.2011 Gk.