Telangana High Court
WP/34580/2011 of R.Veera Swamy, Vs Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.34580 OF 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in trying to demolish the structures raised in R.S.No.159/2 of Durga Agraharam in Municipal Ward No.23 (old), present No.26/2,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO.34580 OF 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondent in trying to demolish thestructures raised in R.S.No.159/2 of Durga Agraharam in MunicipalWard No.23 (old), present No.26/2, with Door No.30-22-92,Vijayawada as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct therespondent not to demolish the structures raised by the petitionerwithout following the due process of law.
2. The brief facts, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition, are that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of an extentof 231.50 sq.yards together with thatched house in the aforementionedpremises having purchased the same under a registered sale deed.The petitioner made an application on 21.07.2011 to the respondentCorporation for construction of RCC Roof Building Ground and FirstFloor for commercial purpose and the respondent Corporation grantedpermission on 17.08.2011. The petitioner made construction in part inthe second floor and is contemplating to file an application forregularization under Section 455-A of the Hyderabad MunicipalCorporation Act, 1955. The officials of the respondent Corporationvisited the property on 26.12.2011 and threatened him to demolish theconstruction in the second floor. Till date, the petitioner has notreceived any notice from the respondent Corporation, but he isapprehending that the respondent may demolish the structures raisedby him without following the due process of law. Hence, he filed thepresent writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondentCorporation is trying to demolish the structures raised by the petitionerin the second floor without giving any notice to the petitioner and hence, he prays to issue a direction to the respondent Corporation notto demolish the structures raised by the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondent Corporation contended that the respondent Corporationwould follow the due process of law in case the structures raised bythe petitioner are contrary to the sanctioned plan or without there beingany sanction.
5. The petitioner seems to have raised structures in theaforementioned premises. The apprehension of the petitioner is thatthe respondent Corporation is trying to demolish those structures. Thepetitioner claims to be the owner of the property. Even assuming for amoment that the petitioner constructed the structures without therebeing any sanctioned plan or deviating from the sanctioned plan, therespondent Corporation has to follow the due process of law. Therefore, the respondent Corporation is directed to follow the dueprocess of law to demolish the structures in case the petitioner raisedthem without any sanctioned plan or deviating from the sanctionedplan.
6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
_______________
K.C.BHANU, J
29[th] December, 2011.AMD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
AMD
WRIT PETITION NO.34580 OF 2011
Date:29.12.2011