THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.23624 OF 2004 Dated 11th September, 2009 Between: Sri Jain Mission Society …Petitioner And Vijayawada Municipal Corporation …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu Counsel for the respondent: Smt G.Jhansi The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Society seeking direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in taking steps for demolition of the building constructed by it in the premises bearing Door No.12-11-87, Padi Veedhi, Vijayawada, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner-Society is the owner of residential site admeasuring 400.76 square yards covered by premises bearing Door No.12-11-87 under assessment No.8809 of Padi Street of Vijayawada- 1, which it claimed to have purchased under registered sale deed dated 22.04.2004, from its original owners Ameerunnisa and others. For the purpose of making construction over the said site, the petitioner submitted an application for permission along with plan to the respondent-Municipality on 28.06.2004. On the ground that there was no refusal of the said application within the statutory period, in view of the deemed approval provision under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), which Act is made applicable to the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation as well, the petitioner-Society proceeded with the construction and constructed ground+three upper floors. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the constructions were made as per the plan submitted by it to the respondent, the officials of the respondent have visited the building on 14.12.2004, with a view to take steps for demolition stating that there are violations in respect of maintenance of setbacks. It is the case of the petitioner that even for removal of any unauthorised structures, there is a procedure contemplated under the Act, and as such without issuing any notice, the proposed action of the respondents for demolition of the building is illegal and arbitrary. The Commissioner of the respondent-Corporation has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein, while admitting that the petitioner applied for building permission for construction of ground+ three upper floors in the premises bearing Door No.12-11-87 of Padi Street, Vijayawada-1, it is stated that even before granting the approval, the petitioner started construction contrary to the plan submitted by it; that the petitioner wilfully deviated the proposed plan and constructed in excess to the coverage proposed and also in violation of the setbacks; that the respondent issued notices under Sections 42(1) and 43(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Development Authority Act, 1975 read with Section 452 of the Act; that in spite of the said notices, the petitioner did not prefer to submit any explanation nor removed the unauthorised construction and that a final notice was issued under Section 636 of the Act on 12.12.2004 requiring the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction within three days. It is further stated that in view of the final notice issued under Section 636 of the Act, the said unauthorised construction was taken up for demolition on 17.12.2004. On approaching this Court, this Court, by order dated 20.12.2004, issued directions to maintain status quo. The said order, passed by this Court, has been in force since then. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Section 455-A of the Act, which empowers the respondent to regularise the buildings constructed without sanctioned plan, the petitioner also made an application for regularisation of the construction, which is numbered as BPS-6486/2008, and the same is pending for consideration before the respondent. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has taken steps for demolition without following due process of law, but in view of the averments in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that before taking such steps, notices as contemplated under the Act were issued and merely because the plan submitted by the petitioner was not disapproved within the statutory period, even under the deemed approval provision also, no constructions are permissible either contrary to the plan submitted or without following the setbacks as contemplated under the byelaws framed under the Act. Since the respondents have followed the procedure of issuing notices under the Act before taking up the proposal for demolition of the construction, it cannot be said that the said proposal is illegal or arbitrary. But, however, as it is submitted that the petitioner made an application before the respondent for regularisation of the construction, in question, and the same is pending for consideration, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent not to take any steps for demolition of the construction, in question, till the application of the petitioner for regularisation is considered and disposed of, in accordance with the scheme notified for regularisation. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not make any further constructions on the building, in question. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 11th September, 2009 vrn