IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3279 of 2007 Between: Chikuri Narasimha Raju, S/o. Late Suryanarayana Raju, R/o.D.BNo.61-4-16, Balajinagar, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada.-13. ..... PETITIONER AND The Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada. .....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 in the nature of writ of Mandamus declating the action of the respondent Corporation in demolishing the house Door No. 61-4-16, Balajinagar, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada-13 as illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MADHAVA RAO AMBADIPUDI Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.G.JHANSI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3279 OF 2007 ORDER: Questioning the action of the respondent in taking steps to demolish the house bearing D.No.61-4-16, Balajinagar, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada-13, the petitioner filed this writ petition. According to the petitioner, for the last 32 years he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house bearing D.No.61-4- 16, Balajinagar, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada, which originally belonged to one late Sarveshwara Rao. He contends that, in connection with the said property, some civil disputes are raised against him and they are pending before the competent civil courts. While so, as some rooms of the said house were in dilapidated condition, he effected some repairs, such as re-plastering, changing the asbestos sheets and white washing to the said house. Consequent to the said repairs undertaken by the petitioner, on the false complaint given by some persons that the petitioner was constructing and developing the subject property without any approval of the plan, the respondent authorities verified the nature of constructions and, thereupon, the respondent issued notice, under Section 42 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and also Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, on 20.01.2007 to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his explanation as to why orders should not be passed for demolition of the constructions made by him, as per the provisions of the said Acts. It is also directed in the said notice that the petitioner should not proceed with further constructions. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his submitting explanation on 13.02.2007 to the said notice dated 20.01.2007, the respondent is intending to demolish the structures, without considering his explanation and without passing any orders thereon. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that, pursuant to the notice issued under Section 42 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and also Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, the petitioner submitted his false explanation on 13.02.2007. The contention of the petitioner that the Corporation is going to demolish the house in question without considering the realities of the case is denied. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that even before issuance of notice for demolition as contemplated under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition on 20.02.2009. Be that as it may, when the matter was posted on 23.04.2009, there was no representation and, as such, the matter was directed to be posted today for dismissal. Even today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation for the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. _________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 24.04.2009 v v