HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.4885 of 2005 Date: December 2, 2009 Between: V. Vasundara Priya, W/o. V. Sekhar, Hindu, aged about 30 years, H.No.8-4-325/20, Anandnagar, Yerragadda ‘X’ Roads, Hyderabad – 500 018 … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District … Respondent Order: There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps for demolition of structures constructed in an area of 430 Sq. ft., covered by a residential flat, as illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of a residential flat in the ground floor, bearing No.G-1, admeasuring 430 Sq. ft, along with undivided share of 11 Sq. yards, in House No.1-79/2/1, Plot No.141, Sy.Nos.19&20, situated in Motinagar, Bobbuguda village, Kukatpally Municipality. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though she purchased the said flat from its earlier owner, by way of registered sale deed, respondents visited the premises on 21- 03-2005 and were taking steps for demolition without assigning any reason and without following due process of law. A counter affidavit is filed by the Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality. While, generally, denying various allegations of the petitioner, it is stated in the counter affidavit that, in the premises in question, permission was granted for construction of stilt plus four upper floors in favour of M/s. Build Guaranty, represented by its partners Sri N. Bathma Raj and Sri K. Venu Gopal. It is stated that as per the approved plan, entire stilt floor is meant for parking and no structures are permissible therein. It is alleged that the builder has unauthorizedly raised structures in the parking area. While denying the allegation of the petitioner that officials of the Municipality visited the premises in question, it is stated that if any steps are to be taken, the same will be taken as per the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. Though it is the case of the petitioner that she has purchased the flat in the ground floor admeasuring 430 Sq. ft., but, as evident from the counter affidavit, the said construction is not authorized and supported by any approved plan. In that case, the said construction is deemed to be illegal. In any event, as much as it is stated in the counter affidavit that if any steps are to be taken, respondents will do so by following due process of law, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents not to demolish the structures belonging to the petitioner covered by the flat in question, without following due process of law. It is made clear that if the petitioner is entitled for regularization of such structures, this order will not preclude the petitioner from filing an application seeking regularization. No order as to costs. ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 2, 2009 MRR