IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9188 of 2003 Between: Chilukuri Venkata Rao. S/o.Chilukuri Kodanda Ramaiah, Plot No.844,Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Rangareddy District. Kukatpally Municipality, Ranga Reddy Dist. .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in trying to demolish the house bearing No.4-32-1/164, admeasuring 264 sq.yards situate in Plot No.164, under Sy.No.92 to 103, Bagh Ameeri village, Kukatpally Municipality Ranga Reddy Dist. without considering the explanation and without issuing confirmation order as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the house of the petitioner as the construction of the building is in accordance with the section 214 of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.9188 of 2003 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by way of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent in trying to demolish his house bearing Door No. 4-32-1/164, in an area of 264 square yards, situated at Plot No.164, in survey Nos. 92 to 103 of Bagh Ameeri Village, Kukatpally Municipality, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the house bearing Door No.4-32- 1/164, admeasuring 264 square yards, having purchased the same through registered sale deed, vide document No.472 of 1996, dated 27-01-1996, from its earlier owner one Smt. Ballipalli Sudha, wife of Sri Koti Prasad Rao. It is stated that the vendor of the petitioner has purchased the said site from Rahul Co-operative Housing Society Limited, vide sale deed, dated 05-12-1994. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that for constructing a building consisting two upper floors, he submitted an application to the respondent on 17-10-2002, for approval of plan, as contemplated under Section 209 of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for brevity ‘the Act’), duly enclosing the plans and title deeds. As there was no communication to him from the respondent-Municipality within the statutory period of 60 days and on expiry of 60 days, from the date of submission of application, he has proceeded with construction in view of the deemed provision for permission. 4. It is submitted that though there is power vested with the respondent-Municipality either to reject or approve the plan submitted by him, within a period of 60 days as contemplated under Section 212 or 213 of the Act, in spite of the same, respondent has issued notice, dated 13-03-2003, in proceedings No.TPS/1/47/KKP/03 in exercise of powers under Section 228 (1) and (2) of the Act, threatening to demolish his house, and in response to the same, the petitioner has filed his explanation on 29-03-2003, denying the allegations in the notice, dated 13-03-2003. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has filed an explanation dated 29-03-2003 in reply to the notice issued under Section 228 (1) (2) of the Act, the respondent is taking steps for demolition of his house without passing and serving any further orders on his explanation, as contemplated under Section 228 (2) (3) of the Act. 6. While admitting the writ petition, this Court, on 13-05-2003, granted interim orders, directing the respondent not to demolish the house of the petitioner. The said order passed by this Court is all along in force during the pendency of the writ petition. Though the writ petition is of the year 2003, no counter affidavit is filed controverting the allegations of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner has filed a copy of the explanation, which is stated to have been filed by him on 29-03-2003. In the said explanation, it is categorically stated that he has applied for grant of building permission by enclosing necessary documents on 17-10- 2002, and as there was no response from the Municipal Authorities, he has proceeded with the construction. 8. Under Section 214 of the Act, as the respondent- Municipality did not pass any orders on the application of the petitioner within a period of 60 days as contemplated under Section 212 or 213 of the Act, such approval or permission shall be deemed to have been given on the application. As it is the case of the petitioner that there was no rejection within a period of 60 days after his submission of application for approval of plan, and further, in the absence of any counter affidavit, controverting the allegations of the petitioner, there appears no reason at all for the respondent- Municipality, to take steps for demolition of petitioner’s house. In any event, as the impugned notice is only a provisional one, issued under Section 228 (1) (ii) of the Act and the same has to be confirmed by further confirmatory orders as contemplated under Section 228 (3) of the Act, no steps shall be taken up for demolition of petitioner’s house. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, and in the absence of any counter affidavit controverting the allegations of the petitioner, and taking into account the interim order passed by this Court, which is in force for the last more than four and half years, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent not to demolish the house of the petitioner bearing Door No. 4-32-1/164, situated at Bagh Ameeri village, Kukatpally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. However, it is made clear that if any constructions are being made by the petitioner in violation of the building regulations and rules made there under, this order will not preclude the respondent-Municipality from taking steps in accordance with law. 10. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ 1st July 2009 KVR