IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12035 OF 2010 Date:07.10.2010 Between: D. Lakshmi .... Petitioner And State of A.P., rep. By its Principal-Secretary to Government, Hyderabad and 4 others. ...Respondents Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps for demolition of the petitioner’s structures in the premises covered by house bearing No.58-1-246 in survey No.28/3A, 28/2B and 28/2C of Butchirajupalem Revenue village, Gowrinagar situated within the Municipal limits of 2nd respondent as illegal, irregular and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the building situated in site admeasuring 135 sq. yards in house bearing No.58-1-246 in survey Nos.28/3A, 28/2B and 28/2C of Buthirajupalem Revenue Village, Gowrinagar within the Municipal limits of the 2nd respondent and after obtaining permission from the 2nd respondent constructed the building. It is also his case that in view of certain deviations, he applied for regularisation of minor deviations of construction by filing an application before the Government in B.P.S.No.00888/42/Zone-IV and the same is pending consideration. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent visited his building and marked certain portions of his building for the purpose of demolition of such portions contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, which extends to the Greater Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents corporation submitted that the application of the petitioner filed in B.P.S.No.00888/42/Zone IV, is rejected with the endorsement, dated 21.05.2010. It is further submitted that the area in question falls in residential zone as per the sanctioned Master Plan and Zoning Development Plan, but the petitioner is using the ground floor portion for commercial use in residential zone and in view of the same, the application of the petitioner was rejected. It is further stated that the officials of the respondents have not visited the premises of the petitioner and have not marked any portions of his building for demolition, as pleaded by the petitioner and the petitioner made false allegations only with an intention to approach this Court. As per the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, which extends to the Greater Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation, even for removal of any structure which are constructed un-authorisedly, there is a procedure prescribed. At the first instance, notice has to be issued under Section 453 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act calling for the explanation for passing final orders. In the present case, no such notices are issued as on today. However, as stated above, the application of the petitioner filed under Building Regularisation Scheme is also rejected by the endorsement, dated 21.05.2010. In view of the reasons stated above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents that, if any unauthorised constructions are made by the petitioner contrary to the approved plan, they shall not be removed otherwise than by following due process of law. It is also made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings, dated 21.05.2010, rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Building Regularisation Scheme, it is open for the petitioner to work out any other remedy available to him. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. October 07, 2010 Gk. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12035 OF 2010 Date:07.10.2010. GK.