(1.) The present second appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and decree in A.S. No.113/86 dated 2-2-1993 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, setting aside the decree and Judgment in O.S. No.50/79, dated 29-9-1986 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Machilipatnam, dismissing the suit with costs. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
(2.) The Plaintiff filed suitfor declaration that the notice No.B.A.425/75dated 1-2-1979 issued by the first defendant as illegal and unenforceable and also for declaration that the G.O. Rt. No.42, MA. dated 10-1-1979, as illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from implementing the notice dated 1-2-1979.
(3.) The averments of the plaint, in nut-shell are, that the plaintiff is the owner of the house bearing No.17/392, Buttaipet, Machilipatnam, having purchased the same under a registered sale-deed, dated 27-10-1975. As the house was in dilapidated condition she intended to make necessary construction for proper enjoyment of the house. Accordingly, she filed an application for approval of the plan from the Municipality, which was duly sanctioned on 15-12-1975. However, the plaintiff constructed a bath-room and thereafter sought for permission from the 1st defendant and the same was refused on 16-7-1976. Thereafter the 1st defendant issued notice dated 1-2-1979 for demolition of the unauthorised construction. It was stated in the notice, if the directions contained therein are not complied with within a week, the construction will be removed departmentally without further notice and expenses will be recovered from the plaintiff. In the said notice the G.O. Rt. No.42, MA, dated 10-1-1979 was also referred to. In this G.O. the Government have stated that the construction of bath-room is unauthorised and they should be removed. The internal and external drainage system be diverted in the eastern side waste land of the plaintiff. It is averred in the suit that the notice dated 1-2-1979 is illegal and invalid and the same is in violation of Sec.228 of the A.P. Municipalities Act and no opportunity was given to the plaintiff before issuing the impugned notice, The plaintiff further stated that the Government order issued on 10-1-1979 is also illegal and void as she was not afforded any opportunity before issuing the said G.O., which has the effect of demolition of the premises.