THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.151 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in issuing notice U.C.No.01/2010 ACP-IV, dated 02-01-2010 and partial demolition of building on 04-01-2010 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the plot No.84-A an extent of 150 square yards in Survey No.151/1B part in Bharat Nagar area of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation by way of possessor agreement, dated 26-04-2007 from her vendor Siriki Sanjeevi, who purchased the same from his vendor Peela Nuka Appa Rao, on 22-05- 2003 vide document No.2434 of 2003. Herself and her vendors have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without hindrance from third parties. The officials of the respondents inspected the building in the year 2007 and assessed property tax and she has been paying the property tax regularly to the 2nd respondent. While things stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ’the Act’), which was served on her on 04-01-2010 and came with staff and demolished some portion of the building i.e., 3 feet parapet wall and compound wall. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the writ petition and stated that the site of the petitioner falls in Sy.No.148/P, which is classified as ‘Rasta Poramboke’ as per revenue record. Since the construction falls in Government lands, on 08-12-2009, the Tahsildar, Pendurthi and Asst. City Planner, Zone-VI have inspected the site and found that the unauthorized construction of the petitioner is falling in ‘Rasta Poramboke’ and the same was informed to the petitioner in the site itself and instructed her to stop the work and remove the unauthorized construction. The officials gave 15 days time to remove the building, but she did not stop the work and further proceeded with the finishing works of the building. A notice under Section 406 of the Act was issued to the petitioner instructing her to stop the work and remove the unauthorized construction constructed in the Government land without taking approval from the Corporation. Further a notice under Section 452 of the Act was issued on 02-01-2010 instructing the petitioner to stop the work and remove the unauthorized construction and the same was served on the petitioner on the same day at 11.30 A.M. Since the petitioner did not comply with the above notice, a notice under Section 636 of the Act was issued on 04-01-2010 instructing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction within 24 hours. When the petitioner refused to take the notice, the same was affixed on the building on 04-01-2010. After lapse of 24 hours, the Corporation removed the compound wall and parapet wall only. The Corporation did not damage the main building. The petitioner requested that they will apply to the Revenue Department for regularization of site. Hence, it prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that without waiting for 3 days after issuance of notice under Section 452 of the Act, the building of the petitioner was demolished and hence, he prays to give a direction to the respondent-corporation not to demolish any further construction. 5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation contended that after following due process of law, they removed the compound wall and parapet wall only, that the Corporation has not damaged the main building and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Though it is stated by the petitioner in the affidavit that notice was served on 04-01-2010, it is specifically stated in the counter- affidavit that notice issued under Section 452 of the Act on 02-01-2010 was served on the same day at 11.30 AM. Since the petitioner did not comply with the above notice, a notice under Section 636 of the Act, dated 04-01-2010 was issued to the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction within 24 hours. As the petitioner refused to take the notice, the same was affixed on the building on 04-01-2010. After lapse of 24 hours, the Corporation has removed the compound wall and parapet wall only and it has not damaged the main building. The petitioner requested the Corporation that they will apply to the Revenue Department for regularization of site in question. The Corporation after issuing notices as contemplated under Sections 452 and 636 of the Act, initiated the action in accordance with law. The Corporation has not committed any illegality in demolishing the compound wall and parapet wall. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 14-12-2011 Hsd