IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10584 of 2006 Between: PVV Satyanarayana S/o. Late Veerabhadra Rao r/o. D.No.21-7-8, Korlammapeta Rajahmundry, E.G.Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Director of Municipal Administration, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad 2 Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry, rep.by its Commissioner, Rajahmundry, E.G.Dist. 3 Town Planning Officer Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation Rajahmundry, E.G.Dist. 4 Smt. Hymavathi , Vijayawada .....RESPONDENTS 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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's building bearing No.21-7-8, Korlammapeta, 3rd cross street, Rajhmundry, East Godavari Dist. by not to demolishing the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SIVANANDA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with his building bearing No.21-7-8, Korlammapeta, 3rd cross street, Rajahmundry and not to demolish the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and the learned Standing Counsel for the Rajahmundry Municipality. The admitted case of the petitioner is that he purchased the existing house property and after obtaining permission from the municipal authorities, constructed ground and first floor by virtue of the permission dated 18.9.1999. Thereafter, without obtaining any permission from the authorities, raised second floor. However, it is stated that though he made an application seeking permission for constructing the 2nd floor, but the respondent authorities have not responded for more than an year and, therefore, he has laid the slab over the 2nd floor and now he wants to again make an application seeking permission for constructing the 2nd floor. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit denying the fact that the petitioner made an application seeking permission for constructing the 2nd floor. It is stated that the petitioner obtained permission for construction of only ground and first floor residential building in an extent of 83.69 sq.mts. in B.A.No.1023 of 1999 dated 18.9.1999 as per G.O.Ms.No.423 MA dated 31.7.1998 up to the permissible Floor Area Ratio. It is also stated that the entire construction made by the petitioner in the 2nd floor is an unauthorized one. On the complaint given by the 4th respondent that the petitioner is proceeding with unauthorized constructions, the 3rd respondent – Town Planning Officer, Rajahmundry Municipality inspected the building and found that the allegation levelled against the petitioner that he is proceeding with unauthorized constructions is correct and accordingly issued a notice to the petitioner on 17.5.2006 pointing out the deviations and directed the petitioner to submit his explanation. Instead of submitting his explanation, the petitioner got a reply issued through an advocate on 24.5.2006 requesting the 2nd respondent and his subordinates not to cause any damage to the building, which is existing for more than a decade and not to act on the untenable mala fide complaints lodged by the 4th respondent. Though the writ petition is filed in the year 2006, no interim orders were granted by this Court. Even according to the petitioner, he has raised the 2nd floor without any permission from the authorities. That apart, there are certain disputes between the petitioner and some other private parties with regard to the property in question. As on today, the constructions made by the petitioner in the 2nd floor are without any permission. It is not brought to the notice of this Court as to whether the petitioner has already applied for regularizing the said construction. Therefore, it is not proper for this Court to grant a blanket order directing the respondent authorities not to interfere in the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the Rajahmundry Municipality that the authorities have already issued a notice to the petitioner but no further action has been taken. In the circumstances, the respondent authorities are at liberty to act in accordance with law in regard to the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner in the 2nd floor. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.20.1.2009 msv