P. Vijayalakshmi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 26 August, 2020
The action of the 2nd
respondent Corporation in demolishing part of the building is
preceded by notice under Section 452 of the Act, for which no
explanation is submitted and thereafter issued notice under Section
636 of the Act and the petitioner's BPS application was also rejected
and communicated to the petitioner and the same has become final.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the 2nd
respondent is under statutory obligation to regularize the authorized
construction of building which is unobjectionable and not causing
any public inconvenience as per the Rules 2019 is untenable as the
petitioner's BPS application for regularization of unauthorized
13 MGRJ
W.P.No.11526 of 2019
construction was rejected on 10.08.2019. The 2nd respondent has to
take appropriate action for demolition of the unauthorized
construction of the buildings, accordingly, the 2nd respondent
proceeded for demolition of the buildings. This court also held,
following the catena of judgments of the Apex Court, that the
unauthorized buildings needs to be demolished in the case of R.
Srinivas Kumar and others v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation and others (supra 1). Hence, the action of the 2nd
respondent Corporation in demolishing the petitioners' unauthorized
building could not be said to be illegal and arbitrary. The writ petition
is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.