HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.34688 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the order dated 20.12.2011 of the 7th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and malafide as the said order is issued against a dead person and set aside the same holding that the existing petitioner’s watchman room of A.C Sheets cannot be demolished as the same is not affecting any public interest or pose any public injury. 2. Heard. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner is the legal heir of late brother Maurice through a Will deed executed by him bequeathing the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 gts., in Sy.No.41/1 of Khanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and since then the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property; that the 7th respondent had illegally issued the notice under Section 452 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) on 1.12.2011 intimating that they have observed unauthorized construction of A.C sheet rooms in the land of the petitioner; that the petitioner has submitted a reply to the 7th respondent on 5.12.2011 to the show cause notice dated 1.12.2011 in its office informing that a small A.C sheet 30 years old room was existing in Western and Northern corner in the said premises prior to its purchase by the said late Maurice; that the petitioner has not made new constructions during the past 24 years after taking over by the said land; that after submitting the reply dated 5.12.2011 to the notice dated 1.12.2011 surprisingly on 20.12.2011, the 7th respondent had passed an order and affixed the same on the wall that too against a dead person even after submitting reply by enclosing all necessary enclosures intimating that they have observed unauthorized construction of A.C sheet rooms in the land of the petitioner; that the very passing of impugned order under Section 452(2) of the Act dated 20.12.2011 without taking into consideration of the reply dated 5.12.2011 of the petitioner is arbitrary, high handed and malafide and hence the present writ petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned notice was issued in the name of dead person, that the petitioner got the said property by virtue of a Will and that immediately on receipt of the show cause notice, he submitted an explanation on 7.12.2011 but without considering the same, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 20.12.2011 and hence he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 7 contended that the petitioner has not produced any documentary proof to show that he got the said property from his brother through a will bequeathing the property; that even in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has not stated that he is apprehending about the demolition of the watch man room at any time by the staff of the 7th respondent and hence they pray to dismiss the writ petition. 6. As seen from the impugned notice, it shows that it was issued on 1.12.2011 and the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the said notice on 5.12.2011 and the 7th respondent has passed the impugned order dated 20.12.2011 without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order of the 7th respondent issued under Section 452(2) of the Act has to be set aside for the reason that the explanation submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the 7th respondent in accordance with law. Hence, the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 7th respondent to pass appropriate orders under Section 452(2) of the Act, considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 5.12.2011 issued by the 7th respondent. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 7th respondent to pass appropriate orders under Section 452(2) of the Act, considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 5.12.2011 issued by the 7th respondent. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU,J. 29.12.2011, Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.34688 OF 2011 Date:29.12.2011 Gk.