THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.28887 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to demolish the houses situated in Door Nos.23/768 and 23/766 in Ward No.23, Fathekanpet, Yadhava Street, Nellore, without issuing any notice or opportunity and without following due procedure of law as illegal, arbitrary and direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the houses or demolish the same without following due process of law. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of property having purchased the same under registered sale deeds and the Municipality also granted permission for construction of the houses. On 24-10-2011 the officials of the 2nd respondent visited the houses along with their men and questioned them for the construction work being carried out by them and without heeding their request, they got demolished the front portion of the house under the influence of local MLA. It is stated that the respondents are trying to demolish the respective houses of the petitioners at Fathekanpet, Yadhava Street, Nellore, without any notice and thereby violated Principles of Natural Justice. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that without giving notice under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) the action of the 2nd respondent in trying to demolish the houses of the petitioners is highly illegal. He further contended that the petitioners were making constructions basing on the original approved plan, but they have not renewed the plan and therefore, he prays to give a direction to the 2nd respondent not to demolish the houses. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents on instructions stated that when the notice was sent, the petitioners refused to receive the notice and therefore, notice was affixed and hence, it is proper compliance under the Act, that as on the date of making construction, the building plans of the petitioners have not been approved and therefore, there are no grounds to give a direction to the 2nd respondent. 5. Section 428 of the Act and building bye-laws contemplate an express sanction to be granted by the corporation before any person can be allowed to erect a building. Section 452 of the Act reads thus: “ Proceedings to be taken in respect of building or work commenced contrary to Act or bye-laws:- (1) If the execution of any building or the execution of any such work as is described in Section 433 is commenced or carried out contrary to the provisions of this Act or bye-laws made there under, the Commissioner, unless he deems it necessary to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under Section 426 shall- (a) by written notice, require the person who is erecting or re- erecting such building or executing such work or has erected or re-erected such building or executed such work, on or before such day as shall be specified in such notice, by a statement in writing subscribed by him or by an agent duly authorized by him in that behalf and addressed to the Commissioner to show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down; or (b) shall require the said person on such day and at such time and place as shall be specified in such notice to attend personally or by an agent duly authorized by him in that behalf, to show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down.” The above provision makes it clear that the Commissioner may remove, alter or pull down the building after giving show-cause notice. 6. There cannot be any dispute that the building has to be constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan. It is not in dispute that originally the petitioners have applied for sanction of building plan and the 2nd respondent granted permission for construction of building on 23-06-2008, which is valid for three years and ended by 22-06-2011. It seems the petitioners have not renewed the building plan. Unless the building plan is renewed, the petitioners cannot make constructions and if they make constructions, it is illegal. The petitioners are not supposed to construct building without there being any sanctioned plan from the municipal authorities. Admittedly, after expiry of the period of the building plan, the plan was not renewed or fresh plan was not obtained by the petitioners. Therefore, at present making constructions by the petitioners is not in accordance with law, but at the same time, they are making constructions as per the sanctioned original plan though it is expired. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are directed to submit fresh application for sanction of plan within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the same shall have to be considered by the Municipal Corporation in accordance with law and till then the 2nd respondent is directed not to demolish the building. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 28-10-2011 Hsd