IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22536 of 2002 Between: 1 Bndaru satti Babu S/o. Sanyasayya Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist., 2 P.Srinivas S/o. Sanyasayya Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist., 3 Ch.Svenkateswarlu, S/o.Kotaiah, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist., 4 Kadalivenkataramana murthy, S/o. Arjuna Rao, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist., 5 MoGwrishnkar, S/o.Nanaji Rao, Visakhapatnam Dist., 6 K.Appa Rao, S/o.Pentaiah, Visakhapatnam Dist., 7 P.Rajkumar S/o.Rajamohana Rao, Visakhapatnam 8 P.Devadas S/o.Venkatesubbaiah, Visakhapatnam Dist., 9 G.Appalakonda S/o.Appanna, Parvada Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist., ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Visakha Urban Development Asuthority (VUDA) Rep. by its Chairman Siripuram, Visakhapatnam 2 Secretary, Rampuram Grampanchayat, Pendurti Mandal, Visakhaatnam. 3 M.Appa Rao, S/o.Appala Naidu, Pendurti Mandal, Visakhaatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. ANIL KUMAR FOR MR.O.MANOHAR REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1: MRS.V.PREETI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in threatening to demolish the constructions made by the petitioners in their respective plots in Survey No.39/1 of Ramapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, in pursuance of the notices issued in Form 3-A, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. V.Preeti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. No one appeared for respondent No.2. The record shows that respondent No.3 has not been served. As there is no conflict of interests between respondent No.3 and the petitioners, non-service of notice on respondent No.3 need not detain this case. The petitioners claimed to have purchased plots in Survey No.39/1 of Ramapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District from respondent No.3. Thereafter, they raised constructions over their respective plots. Respondent No.1 issued the impugned notices under Sections 41(1) and 42(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 calling upon the petitioners to remove the constructions, which were allegedly made up to slab level, as the land over which the houses were being constructed was situated in agriculture zone in the master plan of respondent No.1. The petitioners averred that on receipt of the said notices, they and respondent No.3 made separate representations to respondent No.1 to convert the land use from agriculture to residential. They also averred that respondent No.3, who sold the plots to the petitioners, expressed his willingness to pay necessary conversion fees. The grievance of the petitioners is that without disposing of their representations, respondent No.1 is taking steps to demolish the constructions. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action of respondent No.1 in seeking to demolish the constructions without taking a decision on the representations made by the petitioners and respondent No.3 is arbitrary and illegal. Smt. V.Preeti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the representations of the petitioners and respondent No.3 are pending with respondent No.1 and that no decision is taken thereon. Having regard to the admitted fact that the representations referred to above are pending with respondent No.1, it would be appropriate that respondent No.1 takes a decision on the said representations before seeking to proceed further in pursuance of the impugned notices issued in Form 3-A. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the representations, if any, made by the petitioners and respondent No.3 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the representationists. Respondent No.1 is permitted to take further action only after disposal of the said representations. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th MARCH, 2009. kvni