THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.NO.27683 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.36-46-90/2 in Sy.No.37/4 of Kancharapalem, 35th Ward, Visakhapatnam, in an extent of 225 sq. feet with an un-divided share of 7 sq. yards in the total area of 761 sq. yards without passing regularization orders on the application bearing No.BPS/IV/Ward 35, Serial No.00892 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.2018 of 2003 dated 12-5-2003 for a consideration of Rs.80,000/-. 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 to 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 respondents have issued a Government Order with regard to the regularization of unauthorized constructions. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for regularization of construction of her shop and that the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- for making application and that the petitioner paid the same. Thereafter, the officials of the 2nd respondent visited the premises and took measurements and finally, they imposed penalty of an amount of Rs.19, 500/- for regularization. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the same. But, so far no orders have been passed by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the officials of the 2nd respondent came to the said premises and threatened the petitioner that they will demolish her shop situated in an extent of 225 square feet with an undivided share of 7 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