V BOJARAJULU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT is submitted that the impugned notice had been issued, on 6. 11. 1998, and the petitioner had submitted a revised plan, on 13. 11. 1998. Thereafter, the second respondent had issued a notice, dated 18. 12. 1998, granting the petitioner thirty days time to produce the required documents. Even though the petitioner had submitted the required documents, the respondents are initiating steps to demolish the building belonging to the petitioner without considering the application of the petitioner, dated 13. 11. 1998.

(3.) MR. V. MANOHARAN, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and Mr. P. Srinivas, the learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents have not controverted the claims made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents had submitted that the revised plan application submitted by the petitioner, on 13. 11. 1998, and the connected records had already been returned to the petitioner and therefore, there are no records available on their files pending consideration as stated by the petitioner.