THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.NO.27682 OF 2011 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in trying to demolish the property of the petitioner bearing D.No.36-46-90/3 in Sy.No.37/4 of Kancharapalem, 35th Ward, Visakhapatnam, in an extent of 300 sq. feet with an un-divided share of 14 sq. yards in the total area of 761 sq. yards as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to act in accordance with law. The brief facts of the case are that in 2002, the petitioner purchased the said property vide registered sale deed bearing D.No.1136 of 2002 dated 1-4-2002 for consideration of Rs.2,70,000/-. The vendor of the petitioner has obtained building permission from the 2nd respondent-Corporation vide B.A.No.978/99/ACP.III, dated 19-12-2001, for stilt, ground, 1st , 2nd and 3rd floors and that the 2nd respondent has approved the plan. In the said property, the petitioner is running small business and his property was assessed for property tax, door number was allotted and electricity connection was also given and that she is paying property tax to the respondents regularly without there being any default. While so, the officials of the 2nd respondent came to the said premises and threatened the petitioner that they will demolish her shop in an extent of 300 square feet with an undivided share of 14 square yards and that on 3-10-2011 the officials of the 2nd respondent came to the premises and tried to demolish the premises without giving any notice and without following due process of law. The petitioner resisted the officials of the 2nd respondent and as such, the petitioner is apprehending demolition of the said premises. Hence, the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though an application for regularization is pending with the 2nd respondent, the officials of the 2nd respondent are trying to demolish the building of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the application for regularization is pending, the 2nd respondent will take appropriate decision and if the building is not constructed in accordance with the rules and building bye-laws, necessary action would be initiated for demolition after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that she made an application for regularization of the building and it is pending with the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has not taken any decision so far. The removal of constructions made by the petitioner depends upon the decision that may be taken on the application for regularization. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take appropriate decision on the application filed by the petitioner for regularization within three weeks and thereafter, take appropriate action with regard to demolition of the building by following due process of law after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. No order as to costs. _____________ K.C.BHANU,J rkk Dated: 16-11-2011