IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.20011 of 1999 Between: Smt. Y.Sandya Rani W/o. Ramakoti R/o. Chinamusirivada Village, Pendurit Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority Rep. by its Chairman Visakhapatnam. 2 The District Collector Visakhapatnam. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notice in Rc.No.1011/99/G2, dt.18-9-99 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules and consequently set aside the same and 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.K.S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.SUMALINI REDDY The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ESWAR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.20011 of 1999 O R D E R: The petitioner questions the second show cause notice dated 18.09.1999 issued by the Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam under Sec.41(1), 42(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation within 10 days as to why the unauthorized construction upto RCC coloumn level, without approval, shall not be removed or demolished. A perusal of the show cause notice goes to show that previously a notice in Rc.No.67/6, dated 15.09.1999 was issued. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a landless poor lady and there was a recommendation of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam in his proceedings in D.Dis.No.2194/93, dated 31.05.1993 for assigning an extent of Ac.0.05 cents of land in Sy.No.113/part in plot No.115 in favour of the petitioner, and the Mandal Revenue Officer vide his proceedings in Rc.No.44/85, H.A, dated 23.12.1993, issued patta in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the land cost of Rs.3,200/-was also paid and possession was taken. It is stated that thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for sanction of construction plan, but the 1st respondent vide his proceedings in Rc.No.573/97-Gs, dated 09.02.1999, directed the petitioner to submit revised plan for 203 sq.mtrs. instead of 271.60 sq.mtrs. The petitioner has already started construction and raised upto RCC column level, and when there was an attempt to demolish the same, the petitioner filed WP.27325 of 1998, which was disposed of at the admission stage, directing the respondents not to interfere with his possession without following due process of law. While so, the impugned notice in Rc.No.1011/99/G2 dated 18.09.1999 was issued to the petitioner under Sec.41(1) and 42(1) of the Act seeking to demolish the unauthorized structures raised by the petitioner. The petitioner questions the said notice on the ground that under Sec.42(1)(ii) the unauthorized structures cannot be directed to be removed without giving reasonable opportunity. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in B.Sivaji vs. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority[1] wherein the learned single Judge of this Court held that a minimum period of 5 days or maximum period of 15 days have to be provided for removal of the unauthorized structures so as to enable the landlord to remove the unauthorized structures. I have perused the impugned notice. The impugned notice is not an order directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized structures. It is only a show cause notice issued under Sec.41(1) and Sec.42(1) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause within 10 days as to why appropriate action shall not be taken for removal of the unauthorized structures. The petitioner without submitting any explanation to the said show cause notice resorted to file the present writ petition. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the judgment referred to above has no application to the facts of this case. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a representation pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated 18.09.1999 within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on filing such representation, the 1st respondent-the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority may consider and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. Till then, status quo, existing as on today, shall be maintained. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 11.07.2008 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority Rep. by its Chairman Visakhapatnam. 2 The District Collector Visakhapatnam. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4.2CCs to 5.2CD copies [1] 1992 (2) ALT 142