IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) Dt.18th July, 2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 8683 of 2011 Between: K.Mahesh … Petitioner And 1. The Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, rep. By its Commissioner, and another. … Respondents HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No.8683 of 2011 O R D E R: The petitioner herein claims title and possession in respect of the property situated in Sy.No.777/A2 of Kallur village bearing H.Nos.45/185-34- C1, 45/185-34-C2, 45/185-35, 45/185-35-A, 45/185-35-C having purchased the same under two registered sale deeds dated 17.12.2004. By notice dated 17.03.2011 issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be taken under Section 405 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for demolition of the structures allegedly raised in the encroached portion within 21 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. It was alleged in the said notice that as per the report dated 07.11.2001 of the Tahasildar, Kurnool Mandal and the report dated 07.03.2011 of town Surveyor, Kurnool it was found that the petitioner had constructed the building by encroaching to an extent of 8.50 cents in K.C.Canal porambok land and that he had also deviated the approved plan in BA.No.321/04/G1, dated 16.02.2005. The petitioner states that he submitted a detailed explanation on 21.03.2011 denying all the allegations made by the respondent. Thereafter though no further order has been passed, since the staff of the 1st respondent-Corporation have been interfering with the possession of the petitioner and attempting to demolish the structures raised by him, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, the fact that the petitioner’s explanation dated 21.03.2011 was received has not been denied. It is also not in dispute that so far the 1st respondent has not passed any final order after considering the petitioner’s explanation dated 21.03.2011. However, relying upon the report submitted by the Tahasildar, Kurnool and the Town Surveyor, Kurnool, the learned counsel for the Corporation sought to justify the impugned action. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, who claims to be the neighbour of the petitioner and got himself impleaded and perused the material available on record. Having regard to the admitted fact that a notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken under Section 405 of the Act, the 1st respondent is bound to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass an order assigning the reasons for his conclusion. Since no such order has been passed by the 1st respondent so far, the Corporation cannot resort to demolition of the structures on the alleged encroached portions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the petitioner’s representation dated 21.03.2011. Till such time, there shall not be demolition of the structures in question. No costs. _______________ JUSTICE G.ROHINI Dt. 18th July, 2011 PNV