This writ petition is instituted by a practitioner of law, challenging the legality and validity of the notice issued on 29.06.1996 by the respondent in terms of Section 228 (3) of the Municipalities Act, 1965, directing demolition of a certain portions of the first and second floors of the building, constructed by the petitioner bearing H.No.2-3-195, Kaman Road, Karimnagar.

The case of the petitioner is that, he has constructed a building comprising of a single floor sometime during 1972-73 and it was assigned house No.2-3-195, Kaman Road, Karimnagar. The petitioner has proposed to make an addition to the existing building by constructing first and second floors thereon and submitted an application in that regard on 06.09.1984 duly paying a sum of Rs.1305/-. Finding no response, either sanctioning or refusing to sanction the building permission applied for, the petitioner has delivered a notice in the office of the Commissioner of the respondent on 08.11.1984 notifying that he is proceeding to execute the work of construction treating the building permission applied for by him as deemed to have been sanctioned. At that stage, on 14.12.1984 the respondent has served two notices, one under Sub-section (1) of Section 228 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, (henceforth referred to as ‘Act’) and the second under Sub-section (2) of the same Section 228 of the Act. These notices are alleged to have been served on the petitioner on 02.01.1985. The petitioner drew a representation on 04.01.1985 pointing out that he has intimated the commencement of construction on 08.11.1984, as he did not receive any communication with reference to the building application submitted by him on 06.09.1984 and hence the building permission is deemed to have been granted to the petitioner. However, on 21.01.1985, the respondent passed orders in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 228 of the Act directing the petitioner to remove the constructions made by him unauthorizedly, failing which action in accordance with Section 340 of the Act would be initiated in the matter. At that stage, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.44 of 1985 in this Court. While admitting the said writ petition, a status quo order was passed by this Court. Since the petitioner is said to have collected the necessary building material, he moved WPMP.No.459 of 1985 in W.P.No.44 of 1985 to permit him to carry on constructions of first and second floors over the existing ground floor in premises bearing H.No.2-3-107, Kaman Road, Karimnagar, duly furnishing an undertaking that he would face any consequences in case the writ petition is dismissed. This miscellaneous petition No.459 of 1985 is disposed of on 01.03.1985. It will be appropriate to notice the order passed in the said application which reads as follows:

“I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel for the Municipality. The Counsel for the petitioner is pressing for an interim order in this matter on the ground that his client has already collected and stored the building material and is not able to carry on the construction. So far as the stand of the respondent, that a rejection was communicated to the petitioner is concerned, I do not find any material on record to show that any such communication was sent in writing or even made orally. In view of this, the contention of the petitioner that the permission is deemed to have been granted is correct.

The main ground on which the plans are alleged to have been rejected and the writ petition is opposed is that the petitioner’s intended construction is in violation of Rule 9 Sub Rule 2. In respect of the open space between the building and street line, according to the counsel for the Municipality, a distance of 1.5 metres from the street line upto the line of construction of any floor has to be maintained. There is no other objection either available in the record or pressed at the hearing interlocutory petition may be disposed of and the questi