THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.16971 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property situated at Masab Tank, Hyderabad, which was given to her by the respondent-Corporation in lieu of acquiring her property situated at South East Corner of Masab Tank, Hyderabad, under Declaration of Transfer by Exchange, dated 21.01.1997. While so, it is her grievance that the respondent-Corporation issued notice, dated 04.08.2006, under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) calling upon her to submit explanation within seven days as to why the illegal and unauthorized constructions made in the subject property should not be demolished. Questioning the said notice, dated 04.08.2006, the petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that the same is in violation of Declaration of Transfer by Exchange, dated 21.01.1997, wherein certain concessions were granted relaxing the rules of construction, which are very much apparent on the face of it and that she made constructions in accordance therewith. This Court, while issuing notice before admission, on 14.08.2006 directed the parties to maintain status quo existing as on that day and thereafter on 18.09.2006, issued Rule nisi and extended the interim orders of status quo granted earlier until further orders. The respondent-Corporation filed a detailed counter in the matter admitting that the subject property was given to the petitioner in lieu of acquiring her property. However, it is categorically stated that Declaration of Transfer by Exchange, dated 21.01.1997, gives liberty to the petitioner to seek relaxation of set backs while seeking permission, but she raised the present illegal constructions without obtaining permission as required under Section 428 to 433 of the Act. It is also stated that on an earlier occasion, anticipating that the respondent-Corporation may demolish the constructions, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9425 of 2005 and this Court by order, dated 27.04.2005, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondent- Corporation not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and not to demolish constructions, without following due process of law. It is further stated that the impugned notice is only a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation and instead of submitting the explanation, she filed the present writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. Though the petitioner sought to oppose the action of the respondent-Corporation in issuing the impugned notice, the fact remains that it is only a show-cause notice calling upon her to submit her explanation as to why the illegal and unauthorized constructions made by her in the subject property should not be removed. Therefore, instead of going into the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner is directed to submit her explanation to the impugned show-cause, dated 04.08.2006, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with necessary documents, including Declaration of Transfer by Exchange, dated 21.01.1997, substantiating her claim that certain concessions were given in her favour relaxing the rules of construction. Thereupon, the respondent-Corporation shall pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:25.06.2010 VGB