HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8843 of 2004 Date : 05.08.2009 Between : M.T.V.Manikya Ratnakar. …..Petitioner And Eluru Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner. …..Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8843 of 2004 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent- Municipality in proposing to demolish the petitioner’s building bearing D.No.23A-10-5, in Ward No.9/W, T.S.No.177 of R.R.Pet in Eluru of West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has obtained permission from the respondent-Municipality, for construction of a building consisting of stilt plus four upper floors over his land in T.S.No.177 of R.R.Pet, Eluru in West Godavari District. It is stated that he has completed the construction as per the sanctioned plan. While so, the respondent-Municipality has issued provisional notice, dated 20.02.2003, under Sections 228 (1) and (2) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, alleging that certain constructions made by the petitioner were in deviation to the sanctioned plan. The petitioner has submitted his objections to the aforesaid notice, and after considering the said objections, a confirmation notice, dated 16.12.2003, was issued, directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized constructions. Alleging that the respondent-Municipality is taking steps to demolish the constructions made by him, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipality. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the notice, dated 16.12.2003, issued by the respondent-Municipality, the petitioner has submitted an application for penalisation and regularization of the unauthorized constructions, and the same is pending consideration of the respondent-Municipality, and even prior to passing of orders on such application, the respondent-authorities are proceeding to demolish the constructions made by the petitioner. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipality has submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, Eluru Municipality is notified as a Corporation, and hence, is covered by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and in view of the amendments made to the said Act, the respondent is empowered to regularize the unauthorized constructions, subject to certain conditions. He further submits that since the application filed by the petitioner for penalisation and regularization of the unauthorized constructions is pending with the respondents, no steps would be taken for demolition of the constructions made by the petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent- authorities not to take any steps for demolition of the unauthorized constructions made by the petitioner, until appropriate orders are passed on the application filed by him, by the competent authority. However, it is made clear that if any portions constructed by the petitioner are not regularized or penalized pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, it is open to the respondent- authorities to remove such unauthorized constructions, by issuing prior notice to the petitioner. 7. Subject to above directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th August 2009 usd/ajr