THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 16772 of 2009 O r d e r: The petitioner claims to be the owner of land in an extent of 106.39 Sq. mtrs. bearing D. No. 7-10/23/1 in T.S. No. 342 (343) of Puppalavari Veedhi, Srikakulam, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 25.06.1997. He states that as the land purchased by was already assigned door number, he was informed that there is no necessity to obtain permission for construction of the house therein. Accordingly, without obtaining permission from the respondents-Municipality, he proceeded to construct a house in the land in question. While he was making construction, he states the respondents issued notices dated 31.12.2008 and 09.03.2009 under Section 228(1) of the Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), calling upon him to stop the constructions being made by him unauthorizedly. However, before issuance of the second notice dated 09.03.2009, the respondents passed orders dated 21.02.2009 under Section 228(3) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorized structures, else the respondents will demolish them. Thereafter, the respondents filed two cases against him on the file of the Special Judicial II Class Magistrate, Srikakulam, stating that he had committed two offences on 04.04.2009. That the said cases were numbered as TPR Nos. 35 and 36 of 2009, and that he paid an amount of Rs.4,350/- each on 25.07.2009, and that he was informed that the amount paid by him is towards regularization of the unauthorized construction. In spite of paying the said amount, the petitioner states that the respondents are interfering with the constructions. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the constructions made by him as illegal and arbitrary. This Court by order dated 13.08.2009, while ordering notice before admission, directed status quo to be maintained. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, having taken time to file counter, file counter of the respondents, and advanced arguments, reiterating the counter-averments. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Municipality. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the constructions being made by him are unauthorized, without approval of the sanction plan and permission of the respondents. However, the counsel for the petitioner seeks to justify the constructions stating that since the construction being made by the petitioners is within 100 Sq, mtrs. of land, having regard to the provisions of Clause 1(a) of G.O. Ms. No. 423, M.A., dated 31.07.1998, no prior sanction of building application for construction of individual residential building in plots less up to 100 Sq. mtrs. is necessary. This justification sought to be given by the counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted. According to the own admission of the petitioner, the size of the plot is 103 Sq. mtrs. When the size of the plot of the petitioner is more than 100 Sq. mtrs., I fail to understand how the petitioner can seek the benefit of the above G.O. Be that as it may, it is not that the respondents have highhandedly demolished the constructions of the petitioner. According to the respondents, as is evident from the counter, as the constructions being made by the petitioner are violative of the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 678, M.A., dated 07.09.2007, they issued notice dated 31.12.2008 under Section 228(1) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to stop the constructions. However, the petitioner having received the same on 05.01.2009, did not stop the constructions and went ahead. Therefore, they issued final order under Section 228(3) of the Act on 21.02.2009. However, in spite of receiving the final order on 23.02.2009, the petitioner went a head with the constructions, they filed a case against the petitioner in S.T.C. No. 459 of 2009 on the file of Special Judicial II Class Magistrate. In spite of registering the case, when the petitioner proceeded to make construction of first floor, the respondents issued another notice under Section 228(1) of the Act on 09.03.2009 calling upon him to stop the constructions, and in spite of receiving the same, as the petitioner did not stop the constructions, they passed final order under Section 228(3) of the Act on 25.03.2009. When the petitioner, in spite of receiving the same, did not stop the constructions, they filed another case in S.T.C. No. 858 of 2009 on the file of Special Judicial II Class Magistrate. As the petitioner confessed to the commission of offence, the learned Special Judicial II Class Magistrate, imposed fine of Rs.4,350/- each in both the cases, which the petitioner paid on 25.07.2009. However, the petitioner contends that he was informed that the amount of Rs. 4,350/- each paid by him in the two cases, is towards regularization of the constructions, and therefore, the respondents cannot demolish the constructions. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted, because on admission of the petitioner that he made illegal constructions, he was convicted and was imposed a fine of Rs.4,350/- in each case, and in fact, a perusal of the payment receipts, produced by the petitioners, would indicate that the amount paid by the petitioner thereunder, is towards fine/penalty imposed by the Court, for the offence of unlawful constructions made by him, and it is not towards regularization of such unlawful constructions. The manner in which the petitioner has made constructions, and is making constructions without any regard to the notices and final orders issued by the respondents, as noted above, clearly shows that he has no respect for law. A person who has no respect for law and rule of law, cannot seek the aid of the law Courts, to protect his illegal actions. Law Courts protect the rights of persons, only those who obey the law and not who disobey with impunity. Since the constructions made by the petitioner are without obtaining sanction plan and without obtaining permission, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the constructions being made by the petitioner, and such action cannot be said to be highhanded, particularly when the interference of the respondents is only after following the due process of law and to give effect to the final orders passed by them. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J Dated: 13th August, 2010 KSR