IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10338 of 2002 Between : Smt.D.Laxmi Kumari, W/o.Subrahmanyam, R/o.Door No.10/361, 10th Ward, Markapuram, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Markapuram Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Markapuram, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT 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 direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in seeking to demolish the structures in and over the premises bearing No.10-361 10th Ward Markapuram and issuing the notice dt:20.5.2002 of provisional order and final order on 7.6.2002 directing the petitioner to remove structures without giving any opportunity as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent not to demolish the structures. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.M.RAMALINGESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER : Heard learned counsel for petitioner, perused the material on record and the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the notices of demolition issued by the respondent/Municipality in exercise of power conferred under Sections 228(1) and 228(2) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965. It is the case of the petitioner that she had purchased site admeasuring 149 square yards with an existing old house in the year 1996. By obtaining permission from the Municipality vide Proceedings in B.A.No.111/2001/G1, dated 09.11.2001, she had made constructions as per the sanctioned plan. She has questioned the impugned notices issued under Sections 228 (1) and 228 (2) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, mainly on the ground that the said notices were not issued as per the procedure contemplated under the said Act. It is specifically pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that both the said notices were issued in the evening hours of 07.06.2002, which was a holiday. 3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent/Municipality. While denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated in the counter affidavit that a provisional notice under Section 228(1) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 was served on the petitioner on 18.05.2002, and as much as the petitioner has not filed any explanation to the said notice nor removed the objectionable constructions, the said provisional notice was confirmed by the final notice, which was served on the petitioner on 22.05.2002. 4. The provisional notice and final notice are filed along with the writ petition. Though clear date is not visible on the provisional notice, but the final notice was signed on 20.05.2002. Even according to the respondent/Municipality, the provisional notice was served on the petitioner on 18.05.2002, and though the Statute requires giving of reasonable time for complying with the order of provisional notice, it appears, the provisional notice was confirmed by giving only one day time to the petitioner. Asmuch as the final notice confirming the provisional notice was issued with the intervention of only one day after service of provisional notice on 18.05.2002, the said orders are illegal and contrary to the provisions under Section 228 (1) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, which obligates the respondent-authority to give reasonable time to be named in such notice, before confirmation of the same. On the short ground that no reasonable time is given to the petitioner, the impugned notices are liable to be quashed. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notices are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st April 2009 ajr