HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.18075 of 2005 Date: December 21, 2009 Between: Smt. Azeemunnisa Begum, W/o. Khaja Ameenuddin, Aged about 45 years, R/o.H.No.9-20-2502, Situated at Rehmatpura Diary Farm area Sarangapur village, Nizamabad District … Petitioner And The Municipal Corporation of Nizamabad, Represented by its Commissioner, Nizamabad … Respondent Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned notices dated 03-08- 2005 and 12-08-2005 issued by the respondent in exercise of powers under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 for removal of structures raised by her in in an area of 754 Sq. yards in Sy.No.258 of Arsapally Shivar in Ward No.12, Block No.5, Nizamabad 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the aforesaid land, having purchased the same by registered sale deeds. It is stated that Arsapally was a Gram Panchayat earlier and at that stage the petitioner applied for permission to construct sheds to run a poultry farm and as there was no refusal; under deemed permission, she raised sheds. It is the case of the petitioner that after Arsapally Gram Panchayat was merged into Nizamabad Municipality, she paid property tax to the Municipality and in spite of the fact that the sheds raised by her are authorized, the impugned notices are issued for removal/demolition of the same, wherein poultry farm is being run. 3. This court, while admitting the writ petition, by order dated 16-08-2005, directed the respondent not to demolish the sheds of the petitioner. 4. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation along with a petition to vacate the interim order dated 16-08-2005. In the counter affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that there were complaints by the residents of the locality stating that poultry farm is being run by the petitioner in a residential area, without obtaining permission from the competent authority; as such, after making inspection, she was issued notice for production of relevant documents and in response to the same, the petitioner, through her Advocate, on 25-07-2005, sent a reply stating that all the relevant records are with her relatives, residing in Hyderabad and sought 15-days time to produce the same. It is stated that even thereafter, the petitioner did not produce the documents; as such, impugned notices were issued in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 5. On filing petition to vacate the interim order dated 16-08-2005, the same has been vacated by order dated 18-10-2005. 6. It is evident from the counter affidavit that in spite of giving opportunity to the petitioner for the purpose of producing the relevant documents so as to ascertain as to when she had made an application for grant of permission, she did not respond to the same and filed the necessary documents. Further, during the course of arguments, it is not brought to the notice of this court about any deemed provision with regard to permission under the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. No material is also placed before this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner showing that any application was submitted by the petitioner to the Gram Panchayat for grant of permission to raise the sheds. Though some receipts of payment of tax are sought to be relied upon, but, in absence of any permission either from the Gram Panchayat or the succeeding Municipal Corporation for the purpose of construction of sheds in question, the same are deemed to be constructed illegally, without valid permission. In that view of the matter, the respondent has rightly issued the impugned notices in exercise of powers under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 7. As no other grounds are urged, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 21, 2009 MRR