IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6139 of 2006 Between: G. Radhakrishna Murthy S/o G. Prataparudrudu R/o H. No. 76-4-13/1, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District ..... PETITIONER AND Vijayawada Municipal Corporation rep by Commissioner Vijayawada, Krishna District .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the impugned notice dt 20- 3-2006 issued by the respondent served on the petitioner on 26-3- 2006 threatening to demolish the structures in premises bearing D. No. 76-4-13/1, Suphala Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada within 24 hours despite receipt of the requisite amounts towards licence Fee and Developmental Charges etc., as illegal, unjust contrary to law, arbitrary in violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the same, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.B.B.KRISHNA MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.G.JHANSI The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by G.Radhakrishna Murthy with a prayer to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the notice dated 20.3.2006 issued by the respondent to demolish the structures made by the petitioner in premises bearing No.D.No.76-4-13/1, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims that his father purchased an open plot admeasuring 178 square yards in R.S.No.65/A of Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under a registered sale deed in the year 1984. His father constructed four rooms over the said plot, duly obtaining requisite permission from the authorities concerned and the respondent-Corporation allotted D.No.76-4-13/1. His father died in the year 1999. After death of his father, he and his brothers partitioned the properties. In the partition, he got 84 square yards in the said plot. According to him, no permission is required if the constructions are to be made in an area which is less than 100 square yards. When the respondent authority served a notice under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipality Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) directing him to remove the unauthorized constructions within 24 hours, he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer as stated supra. On 27.3.2006 Rule nisi came to be issued and on the same day, interim order came to be passed in WPMP No.7834 of 2006, which reads as hereunder: “It is stated that as per clause 1.1A of G.O.Ms.No.423, Municipal Administration Urban Development dated 31.07.1998, no prior sanction of the building application is necessary for the construction of the individual residential house in the plot upto 100 square metres, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. None of the conditions have been violated. Therefore, the respondent cannot demolish the construction of the second floor. Interim stay as prayed for. “ Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that constructions made by the petitioner is in an area which is less than 100 square yards and therefore, no permission is required from the respondent-Corporation. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner is required to submit a plan before proceeding with the construction. A fact remains that notice has been issued to the petitioner under Section 636 of the Act. If he claims exemption of obtaining permission, he has to submit objections to the notice issued under Section 636 of the Act and invite adjudication. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit his objections to the notice issued under Section 636 of the Act and thereupon the respondents-Corporation shall consider the objections and pass appropriate orders. Till the disposal of the objections raised by the petitioner, the interim order passed on 27.3.2006 shall continue in operation. No costs. __________ 23-07-2008 rkk