IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13893 of 2008 Between: K. Ravi Kumar S/o. Late Purushotham R/o. TRT73, MCH No. 1-1-18/130, Jawaharnagar, RTC 'X' Roads, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst.Town Planning Officer, Circle-III, MCH, Abids, Hyderabad. 2 The Town Planning Supervisor/Inspector, Circle-II, MCH, Abids, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing part of the construction in the house belonging to the petitioner bearing TRT 73, MCH No. 1-118/130 situated at Jawahar Nagar, RTC'X; Roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad without verifying the approves plan, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without following due process of law is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAVI KONDAVEETI Counsel for the Respondents: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.13893 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Sri K.Ravi Kumar assailing the action of the respondents in demolishing part of the additional constructions made in the ground floor of the house owned by him. The petitioner purchased land admeasuring 235.68 sq.yards and 46.84 sq.yards situated at Jawaharnagar, Chikkadapalli, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad, under a registered sale deed, dated 19.12.2006. He obtained permission for additions in the ground floor and put up additional constructions accordingly. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents in his absence got demolished part of the additional constructions and they contemplated to demolish the other part of the additional constructions made by him, without serving any notice on him. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for MCH received notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in case the additional constructions made by the petitioner are required to be demolished, the respondents will follow due process of law. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to demolish the additional constructions put up by the petitioner pursuant to the sanction obtained by him under Permit No.172/9, dated 02.07.2007, except in accordance with law. No costs. ____________________ (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) Dt.24th July, 2008 Note: Issue CC in three days. (b/o) VGB