IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.31436 OF 2011 Between : A.Shankar Rao ... PETITIONER A N D Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and another. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.31436 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in attempting to demolish the structures in premises bearing No.13-3-1009 to 1014, Jiaguda, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The averments of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the property premises bearing No.13-3-1009 to 1014, Jiaguda, Hyderabad, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed, dated 26th Azar, 1356, bearing document No.191 of 1356 F. Even by the date of purchase, the mulgies in existence in the said premises. Recently due to rain, the roof of the structures were damaged. Thus, the petitioner got repaired the same. While so, the respondents issued notice on 25.10.2011 under Section 452 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), stating that as to why above unauthorized construction shall not be removed. Immediately after receipt of notice, he submitted an explanation on 02.11.2011 stating that he was not making any illegal constructions in the premises and he has making repairs to the old structures. Thereafter, he was not received any correspondence from the respondents. While things stood thus, on 26.11.2011, the officials of respondent No.2 Corporation came with demolition squad and attempted to demolish the structures. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is constructing the building in accordance with the building bye-laws and therefore, the respondents have no authority to demolish the building. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that without obtaining any prior sanction of the plan, the petitioner is making constructions and therefore, he violated the provisions of building bye-laws; that notice under Section 452 of the Act has been issued to the petitioner and thereafter a detailed order, dated 25.11.2011 has been passed under Section 636 of the Act; that when the petitioner refused to take the order, the same was affixed on the premises in accordance with law and hence, there are no grounds to issue a direction not to demolish the building. 5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The petitioner is making constructions without there being any sanctioned plan from the municipal authorities. The petitioner is not supposed to construct the building without prior approval or sanction from the concerned authorities. As seen from the impugned notice, it seems the petitioner alleged to have encroached into the lane. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to stop the construction forthwith and he shall not make any further constructions. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to stop the construction forthwith and he shall not make any further construction and make an application to the concerned authorities for sanction of the plan within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within ten (10) days thereafter the application of the petitioner has to be considered by the respondents in accordance with the building bye laws. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J DECEMBER 01, 2011. YVL