IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31488 of 2010 Between: Talam Mallikarjuna Rao … Petitioner And The Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru, West Godavari District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Banda Prasada Rao Counsel for respondents 1&2: Sri T. Bheemanna for Sri S. Nageshwara Reddy Counsel for respondents 3&4: Sri P. Satyanarayana This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31488 of 2010 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in threatening to demolish the petitioner’s house bearing H.No.22B-5-23 of Kanukolanu Vari Street, Powerpet, Eluru, West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that vide permit BA.No.244/96/G2, dated 30.11.1996, the erstwhile Eluru Municipality has granted permission to him for construction of a building comprising ground and first floor with RCC roof. The petitioner claimed that he has accordingly constructed the said building and has been residing in the first floor and let out the ground floor for running a pathology lab. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.3 is the son of respondent No.4 and engaged in construction business. It is his further case that in the month of July 2010, respondent Nos.3 and 4 purchased the open land existing on the southern side of his house in the name of respondent No.3 and also another piece of open land existing on the northern side of his house in November, 2010 and that after purchase of the open land on the southern side, respondent Nos.3 and 4 started demanding the petitioner to sell his house in order to construct apartments over the entire land. The petitioner further alleged that on 16.11.2010, respondent No.2 came to his house along with the officials of respondent No.1 and demolished the compound wall existing on the northern side without notice. When the house was attempted to be demolished on the southern side, the petitioner resisted the said attempts. Respondent No.2 has issued notice, dated 08.12.2010, which was served on the petitioner on 11.12.2010 stating that the land will be measured on 10.12.2010 for fixing boundaries. Anticipating that at the instance of respondent Nos.3 and 4, respondent No.1 may demolish the petitioner’s house, he has filed the present Writ Petition. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is the case of respondent Nos.3 and 4 that they have nothing to do with the property of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit of respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that complaints were received from the general public to remove the illegal constructions on the road in order to avoid frequent traffic jams and that during the inspection it was found that the petitioner constructed the building without leaving any set backs on any side more particularly on the road side violating the building rules and regulations and that a notice was served on the petitioner to produce the sanctioned plan, if any and the petitioner failed to show any such plan. At the hearing, the learned counsel representing the learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1, failed to specify the date on which the purported notice was served on the petitioner. It is trite that if any building is constructed either without sanction plan or in violation thereof, the municipal corporation is entitled to take appropriate action. But before taking such action, it is bound to follow the provisions of Sections 452 and 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”). It is not the pleaded case of respondent No.1 that the procedure envisaged in the said provisions is followed. Therefore, respondent No.1 cannot interfere with the building of the petitioner on the ground that he has constructed the same without leaving the setbacks. Respondent No.1 shall issue a notice under Section 452 of the Act and after considering the explanation, if any filed by the petitioner, it can proceed to take action under Section 636 of the Act. Till such procedure is followed, the respondents shall not demolish the petitioner’s building. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.40067 of 2010 and WVMP.No.2095 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.08.2011 ES