G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner claims that she has an agreement of sale executed in her favour in the year 1980 and thereafter, without obtaining any permission from any competent authority, she constructed the house and the compound walls. According to her, the municipal authorities came and, without any notice, sought to demolish the compound walls. Notice has been issued to the learned S. C. for the M. C. H. He represented that the compound walls were constructed without any permission and they nave already been demolished. Admittedly, in this case, the following facts emergethe area was declared as a slum area . No lay-out has been sanctioned. The petitioner was served with notices in 1981, 1987 and also in 1989. The documents in support of her claim were directed to be produced. But no attempt has been made by her to produce them. But, according to the petitioner, she submitted an explanation. On the admitted facts, when construction was made in a slum area it is an unauthorised construction and Sections 402 and 405 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act apply and the Municipal corporation has got the right to demolish the unauthorised constructions without issue of any notice at all.

( 2 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that having kept quiet for ten years, the Corporation is not permitted to raise the objection. The mere fact of giving a number and the collection of the tax do not mean that the illegal construction has transformed into a legal construction. Both are different aspects. So, the authorities are competent to take into account the unauthorised construction and take action under Sec. 405 of the Hyderabad municipal Corporation Act. No case for interference is made out.

( 3 ) THE writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, the petitioner is at liberty to file the relevant documents in support of her claim within one month and the same be considered as per reules and regulations as expeditiously as possible.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document