THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.296 of 2011 Dated:18.11.2011 Between: Pulavarthi Sita Rama Murthy. …Appellant and The Kakinada Municipality, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.296 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The plaintiff’s (appellant herein) suit against the Kakinada Municipality (now Corporation), being O.S.No.1909 of 2004, on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for declaration that the notice issued by the defendant – Municipality, under Section 217(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (the Act,) dated 23.12.2004, is illegal, and for a consequential permanent injunction. The same was dismissed by the trial Court on 13.11.2009. He filed A.S.No.15 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 08.09.2010, aggrieved by which, the present Second Appeal is filed. The appellant instituted the suit alleging that he obtained permission for construction of apartment building consisting of stilt, ground + three floors. He completed construction duly observing the building rules and zonal regulations; he did not violate the rules and only after construction, the Municipality issued notice under Section 217(1) of the Act illegally. The suit was opposed by the Municipality contending that the plaintiff started unauthorized construction and therefore the issue of notice under Section 217(1) of the Act and Section 228(1) of the Act is valid. During the trial, plaintiff was the lone witness as P.W.1 and he marked Exs.A1 to A7. D.W.1 is a Planning Supervisor who categorically stated in his deposition that plaintiff did not leave setbacks as per the approval plan and there were deviations. The trial Court believed the version and dismissed the suit recording a finding that plaintiff deviated from the approved plan. This finding was accepted by the appellate Court. The finding of fact, therefore, does not give rise to any question of law. Counsel, however, submits that the issue of notice under Section 217(1) of the Act after completion of the construction is illegal. This submission is misconceived. A perusal of the said provision would show that Municipality can always issue a notice and remove unauthorized construction which includes the construction made in deviation of approved plan. The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 18.11.2011 vs