IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 8591 of 2005 Between: Haseena Bhanu, W/o. Subhahan, R/o. Puttaparty, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Vice Chairman, Puttaparty Urban Development Authority, Puttaparty, Anantapur District. .....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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent herein in attempting to demolish the structure raised in House bearing No. 6-157, Yenumulapalli Village, Anantapur District, without following the provisions contemplated under the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 as illegal, arbitrary and ultravires Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent not to demolish and interfere with the construction of the Petitioner, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.A.M.RAO Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : ORDER: Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent herein in attempting to demolish the structure raised in House bearing No. 6-157, Yenumulapalli Village, Anantapur District, without following the provisions contemplated under the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) as illegal, and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased the said house No.6-157, Yenumulapalli village, Anantapur District and obtained permission for construction of ground + two floors vide proceedings DSBA.No.4/05/BA, dated 25-02-2005, and started construction as per the sanctioned plan which has been obtained for the purpose of constructing the shop as well as residential purpose but without issuing any notice respondent is trying to demolish the structures. 3. Counter has been filed stating that the petitioner obtained permission for construction of shop, ground floor, 1st and 2nd floors for residential purpose after demolishing the existing building vide permission, dated 25-02-2005, but it was found that the petitioner violated the conditions stipulated in the building permission and the same is intimated to her vide U.C.No.27/2005/TPA I/C, dated 23-04-2005, pointing out the violations/deviations mentioning the area of 1.0 meter encroachment towards the western side; 1.00 meter encroachment towards the southern side; 1.2 meters in northern side; and 1.73 meters towards the eastern side and on the encroached extent construction is going on and therefore the said notice was issued but there was no reply. 4. This Petition was filed on 15-04-2005 but in the counter it is stated that after filing the petition a notice has been issued on 23-04-2005. Unless the petitioner submits satisfactory reply rectifying the deviations I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this Writ Petition. It is always open for the respondent to implement and ensure that the petitioner is not entitled to make any constructions contrary to the permission obtained by her. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, as the notice, dated 23-04-2005, was already issued to the petitioner pointing out the deviations for taking appropriate action the relief prayed for in this Writ Petition does not survive. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 24th March, 2008 Tsy To 1 The Vice Chairman, Puttaparty Urban Development Authority, Puttaparty, Anantapur District. 2 2CCs to 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}