IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16364 of 2008 Between: 1 Nazira Begum W/o Malim Saleem H. No. 7-6-7, Chintalapet, Gadwal Taluk, Mahabubnagar District. 2 Habibunnisa Begum W/o Md. Kaleem H. No. 7-1-37, Momin Street Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Gadwal Municipaltiy, rep by its Commissioner Gadwal 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 order more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action fo the 1st respondent in Pasting a notice at the premises of the petitioners in UCR No. /1/2008 and UCR No. /2/2008 dated 24.07.2008 pending applications of the building vide No. 07009055 AND 07009056 dated 30.4.2008 at premises bearing No. D.No. 1-4-2/7B and D.No. 1-4-2/7A, in Plot No. 7, Survey No. 689/D & F Bhimnagar Colony, Near Nalakunta Bus Stand Backside, Krishnaveni Cross Roads, Gadwal., bounded by East 50" Road, East Kaluva, North Plot No.6, South Kaluva as illegal arbitrary, capricious, voilative of principles of natural justice against the GOs. issued by the 2nd respondent vide. GO No. 901 dated 31-12-2007 and GO No. 112 dated 21.1.2008 and consequentially to suspend the operation of notice UCR No. /1/2008 and UCR No. /2/2008 dated 24.07.2008 pending applications for regularization of deviations in the construction of the building vide. No. 07009055 AND 07009056 dated 30.4.2008 and consequently direct the 1st Respondent not to demolish any portion of the building in premises bearing No. D.No. 1-4-2/7B and D.No. 1-4-2/7A, in Plot No. 7, Survey No. 689/D & F Bhimnagar Colony, Near Nalakunta Bus Stand Backside, Krishnaveni Cross Roads, Gadwal., bounded byy East 50" Road, East Kaluva, North Plot No.6, South Kaluva pending applications for regularization of deviations in construction of the building vide. No. 07009055 AND 07009056 dated 30.4.2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 16364 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners who are two in number assailing the notices issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Gadwal Municipality, purportedly under Sections 217, 192 and 194 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. 2. The petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of 156 square yards each in plot No. 7. They submitted house building permission application on 10-12-2007. Subsequently, they revised the plans for construction of Ground + two commercial complex. The 1st respondent issued notice on 12- 3-2008 to the petitioners wherein the petitioners have been asked to submit an application for regularization of the unauthorized constructions vide notice, BPS/G/GDL/-/2008, dated 12-3-2008 in accordance with the latest G.O.No. 901 dated 31-12-2007. The petitioners applied for regularization of the deviations. They also paid a sum of Rs. 3,04,852/- towards regularization of the unauthorized constructions. While so, two notices one under Section 217 and another under Sections 192 and 194 of the A.P. Municipalities Act came to be issued to the petitioners where under the petitioners have been asked to remove the construction made by them on Nala portion. These two notices are under challenged in the writ petition. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 29-7-2008. An interim order came to be passed on the same day, which reads as here under:- “P. Radha Krishna takes notices on behalf of the respondents. There shall be status quo existing as on this day for a period of one week. The petitioners shall not make use of the status quo order to put up any further construction. The respondents shall depute a responsible oﬃcer to the premise of the premises and note the construction existing as on this day and submit report”. 4. Respondents ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the extent of plot No. 7 is only 224 square yards and whereas the petitioners manipulated the documents as if the extent of the plot is 312 square yards. Various other contentions have been raised in the counter affidavit, which are not required to be dealt with in view of the order proposed to be passed. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Notices came to be issued to the petitioners one under Section 217 and another under Sections 192 and 194 of the A.P. Municipalities Act. Both the notices are dated 24-7-2008. The petitioners claim to have submitted an explanation to the notice under Section 217. For better appreciation paras 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit needs to be noted and they are :- “7. It is respectfully submitted that in reply to para 3 of the affidavit, I submit that it is a fact that the petitioners applied for permission for construction of Ground + 2 for 156 square yards each out of plot No.7 by dividing Plot NO.7 in to two parts. This respondent Municipality issued permission on 19-12-2007 for two individual buildings i.e. G+2 in favour of the petitioners separately. The contention of the petitioners that they have reapplied for construction of Ground + 2 Commercial Complexes is absolutely incorrect and baseless. The contention of the petitioners that they have completed almost the entire construction is absolutely incorrect. 8. It is respectfully submitted that in reply to para 4 of the aﬃdavit, I submit that this respondent Municipality by oversight issued notice, dated 12-3-2008 vide Notice No. BPS/G/GDL/2008, dated 21-1-2008 for the BPS scheme vide GO Ms. No. 901 and G.O.Ms. No.112. Accordingly, the petitioners applied for the BSP scheme and paid the amounts. It is pertinent to mention herein that the BPS scheme is not applicable to the petitioners as, as per G.O.Ms. No. 901 the ‘Existing Buildings constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan approved by the competent authority from 1-1-1985 till the date of publication of A.P. Municipal Laws and Urban Areas (Development) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007 in A.P. Gazette i.e. 15-12-2007’. In the present case the petitioners obtained the permission only on 19-12-2007 as per the G.O. The petitioners case shall not come under the said G.O. “ 7. 1s t Respondent Municipality issued two notices under Sections referred above. Under both the notices the petitioners are required to submit their explanations and invite the ﬁnal orders thereon. Though an explanation, dated 26-7-2008 seems to have been issued, it is contended by the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that the said representation, is not in relation to the notice issued to the petitioners under Sections 192, 194 and 217 of A.P. Municipalities Act. 8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit explanation to the notices issued under Sections 217, 192 and 194 of the A.P. Municipalities Act within a week and invite the orders thereon. Till the conclusion of the proceedings initiated consequent to the notice referred above, neither the petitioners shall proceed with the construction nor the respondents shall meddle with existing construction. The 1st respondent shall pass appropriate orders within two weeks of the receipt of the explanation to the notices issued under Sections 217, 192 and 194 of the A.P. Municipalities Act. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 22nd September, 2008. Note: C.C. in three days B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 16364 OF 2008 22nd September, 2008.