HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.17637 of 2004 Between: M.V.Purnachandra Rao ……….Petitioner and Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijaywada, rep. By its Commissioner and two others. ………..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.17637 of 2004 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the endorsement dated 17-09-2004, made by the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, directing to remove the alleged unauthorized constructions made by the petitioner. Petitioner is the owner of the land admeasuring 610.35 square meters in R.S.No.294/4, situated in Gunadala village, Vijayawada. He has made an application for making construction of a building over the said land. The building plan was approved in B.A.No.1974/2001 for construction of a three storied building. It is further stated that after approval of the plan, in view of widening of Karl Marks Road (Eluru Road), Vijayawada, the land of the petitioner was affected to the extent of 98.58 square meters, and therefore, he has constructed additional areas, in view of the orders issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.33, Municipal Administration, dated 03-02-2001. It is alleged that there are certain deviations in the constructions made by the petitioner, and he is using the said premises for marriages, which is causing nuisance by way of sound pollution. The petitioner was directed not to let out the building for conducting the marriages and not to create any nuisance in the area. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that he is not using the building for marriage functions, and as such, no nuisance is caused to the public or any people residing in the surrounding areas. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel, appearing for the respondents, that the portion, which is constructed in deviation to the sanctioned plan, was already removed. As much as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner undertakes not to use the said building for any marriage functions, and also cause any nuisance to the public and the residents of the locality, there is no necessity for this Court to deal with the said aspect. But, however, as far as the deviated portions are concerned, no description of such deviated portions is indicated in the impugned order. Although it is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondents that the portions, which are constructed in deviation to the sanctioned plan, were already removed, but in the impunged order also, there is no description of the portions, which are alleged to have been constructed by the petitioner in deviation to the sanctioned plan. In the absence of any such particulars, the impugned endorsement is vague and no steps can be taken for removal of any structures, basing on such endorsement. For the aforesaid reasons, and also taking into account the undertaking given by the petitioner, that he will not use the building in question for any marriage functions, and will not cause nuisance to the public and residents of the locality, I dispose of the writ petition, by setting aside the impugned order to the extent of direction for removal of deviated portion of the building, as no description was made with regard to the deviated portions in the impugned proceedings. However, it is made clear that if any constructions are made by the petitioner in deviation to the sanctioned plan, this order will not preclude the respondents to issue fresh notice to the petitioner, call for his explanation, and then take further steps in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ 3rd August 2009 KVR