THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.14177 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing the impugned notices dated 21.04.2011 and 02.05.2011 and threatening the petitioner to demolish the first floor of his house, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to refrain from making any attempt to demolish the first floor of the house of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the owner and possessor of the property admeasuring 159.70 square yards, bearing Plot No.LIG-B 280, D.No.10-17-1, at UDA Colony, Chenchupeta of Tenali Town, having purchased the same on 29.07.2000 from one Smt.Shaik Khamurum Bi, W/o.Shaik Subhani, under a registered sale deed. After purchasing the said property, he filed an application dated 05.02.2003 before the first respondent for grant of permission to construct a residential house with RCC roof in the said property and the same was approved by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 05.03.2003. Accordingly, he constructed the said house in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Thereafter, he intended to construct first floor on the said property and when he approached the first respondent in that regard, the first respondent had collected a sum of Rs.500/- and issued an application to him with a direction to submit the same along with ‘No Dues Certificate’, Plans and other required documents. Accordingly, he submitted the application on 25.03.2010 before the first respondent along with required certificates. Even though considerable time was elapsed, he has not received any communication either approving or rejecting his application. When he enquired the matter, the officials informed him to proceed with the construction and the approval would be given in due course. Accordingly, he proceeded with the construction of first floor and completed the same by December, 2010, by spending huge amounts. The officials of the second respondent have also visited his premises and assessed it to property tax in respect of the first floor and he is paying the same. While so, on 04.05.2011, the officials of the second respondent have issued the impugned notices stating that the petitioner made construction of first floor unauthorisedly and directed him to remove the same within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notices, failing which the same would be removed by them. From then, the officials of the second respondent are regularly visiting his premises and threatening to demolish the first floor. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the petition averments and stated that the petitioner has taken permission from Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali & Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority (VGTMUDA) for the construction of ground floor vide D.Dis No.GBA/8/2003, dated 05.03.2003; that as per the said permission, the petitioner has to construct ground floor as per the set backs approved in the plan, but he has also constructed additional floor i.e., first floor, by deviating the approved plan and that the Urban Development Authority vide letter dated 25.05.2010 requested the Tenali Municipality to take necessary action against the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.678, M.A, dated 07.09.2007. Hence, the second respondent issued show cause notices to the petitioner to stop the illegal construction and to remove the unauthorised portion under Sections 42 and 43 of the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 and Section 228 of the A.P Municipalities Act, 1965. It is further stated that reasonable time was given to the petitioner, but he has not responded to the said show cause notices; that even though the Municipality initiated action as per law by issuing notice, the petitioner did not care to the instructions and had completed the work particularly during night times and public holidays; that the Municipality followed due process of law for removing the unauthorised construction and that due to the attitude of the building owners, the Municipality by a special drive started to demolish the unauthorised constructions after taking police assistance in town area. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner submitted a plan for construction of first floor, but it was neither approved nor rejected; that having waited for 90 days, the petitioner started construction in accordance with the plan submitted by him, and therefore, the respondents cannot demolish the first floor constructed by him. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that without obtaining the sanction plan, the petitioner proceeded with construction, without leaving set backs on the first floor and that even though show cause notices were issued, the petitioner has not given any reply to the same, and therefore, final order was passed. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner has constructed the ground floor having obtained sanction from the Municipal Corporation. Thereafter, he said to have applied for construction of first floor, but the respondents neither rejected nor approved the plan. Having waited for 90 days, the petitioner has started construction by virtue of Section 14(5) of the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975. No doubt, the respondents have to approve or reject the plan submitted by the petitioner, if it is in accordance with the requisite format, but at the same time, the petitioner cannot be permitted to construct the first floor according to his choice and he has to leave the set backs on the first floor. The construction, if any, made without obtaining permission from the respondent, must be in accordance with the building byelaws. In the counter-affidavit, it is specifically stated that the first floor was constructed without leaving set backs and that the Municipality has followed due process of law in removing the unauthorised constructions. 7. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow due process of law in removing the unauthorised constructions. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioner from getting sanction for approval from the Municipality for the first floor. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C. BHANU, J Date: 02.12.2011 va