HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No.19215 of 2009 DATED: 11.09.2009 Between: J. Swapna .. Petitioner And 1. The Commissioner 2. The Commissioner and Director of Municipalities 3. M.Govindamma .. Respondents O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that she purchased a house site admeasuring 281.66 Sq. yards situated at Vidyanagar, Nalgonda Town and District under registered sale deed dated 23.05.2000, and after obtaining permission from the 1st respondent, she constructed a house. While so, the 3rd respondent made a complaint against her alleging that she made construction on the northern side in violation of the sanctioned plan without leaving set-backs. Based on her complaint, the 1st respondent, without any enquiry and without physical verification of the site, issued provisional order dated 17.08.2009, directing her to remove the construction and also issued Notice dated 17.08.20009 for compliance of the provisional order. Then, the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 19.08.2009 stating that there is no deviation in construction of her house. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the 1st respondent, without considering her explanation, issued impugned notice dated 21.08.2009 confirming the provisional order, and the officials of the 1st respondent came to her house on 8.9.2009 and threatened to demolish the structures. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to quash the provisional order, consequential notice and the confirmation notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 1st respondent issued the impugned Notice dated 21.08.2009 confirming the provisional order dated 17.8.2009 proposing to demolish the structures made by the petitioner in her site, without indicating the nature of deviations, alleged to have been made in her site. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Nalgonda Municipality appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Municipality appearing for the 2nd respondent. A perusal of the impugned provisional order dated 17.08.2009, consequential notice dated 17.08.2009 and the confirmation notice dated 21.08.2009 would disclose that there is no mention of the nature of deviations alleged to have been made by the petitioner while constructing her house. Since the impugned orders do not disclose the deviations alleged to have been made by the petitioner, both the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Municipality, agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-Commissioner, Nalgonda Municipality is directed to communicate the deviations alleged to have been made by the petitioner and grant her a week’s time to remove such deviations, and if she fails to remove the deviations, then the 1st respondent is at liberty to get the illegal constructions demolished/removed at the cost of the petitioner.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 11th September, 2009 bcj