( 1 ) THIS second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 3610 of 1999 on the file of the learned V Junior civil Judge s Court, City Civil, Hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE appellants are wife and husband. According to them, there existed an old dilapidated building, in the premises bearing No. 23-5-860 situated at Shah Ali banda, Hyderabad in an area of about 100 square yards. They pleaded that having regard to the orders of the Government issued in G. O. Ms. No. 423 Municipal administration and Urban Development (MI) (MA), dated 31-7-1998 (for short g. O. ), exempting the requirement of obtaining permission for construction over the plots admeasuring 100 square meters, they have undertaken construction, after pulling down the dilapidated building. It was urged that on the compliant of respondent no. 4, respondents 1 and 2 have issued notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short the Act ) requiring the appellants to remove the ongoing construction. It is also pointed out that soon after receipt of the notice, a reply was submitted on 17-8-1999 narrating the circumstances as well as remitting a sum of Rs. 2,300/- as provided for under G. O. Ms. No. 423, dated 31-7-1998. Complaining that respondents 1 and 2 are likely to demolish the structure, they filed suit for the relief of declaration that the notice issued to them under Section 452 of the Act is contrary to law and for perpetual injunction. ( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by all the respondents. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a written statement was filed pleading that the appellants were under obligation to obtain a permission and that the plot on which the construction brought about is 4000 square yards. It was also urged that even for undertaking construction in a plot of less than 100 square meters, application is required to be made in advance. The grievance of respondents 3 and 4 was mostly as to their share and entitlement over the suit schedule property. ( 4 ) BEFORE the trial Court, the 2nd appellant was examined as PW. 1 and Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, DW. 1 was examined and on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, 4th respondent was examined as DW. 2. ( 4 ) BEFORE the trial Court, the 2nd appellant was examined as PW. 1 and Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, DW. 1 was examined and on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, 4th respondent was examined as DW. 2. ( 5 ) THROUGH its judgment dated 1-5-2003, trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, appellants filed A. S. No. 255 of 2003 in the Court of IX Additional Chief Judge, city Civil Court (Fast Track Court), hyderabad. The lower appellate Court made several observations and recorded findings in favour of the appellants but ultimately dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal. ( 6 ) SRI K. K. Waghray, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that there existed a dilapidated building in an area of less than 100 square meters and in view of the scheme framed by the Government in the g. O. , they have started construction of a new building without any deviations or violations. He submits that when the very purport of the G. O. is to exempt the requirement of obtaining permission, issuance of notice under Section 452 of the act or insisting of prior permission would defeat the scheme under it. He further submits that the notice under Section 452 of the Act was issued in such a casual and routine manner that it does not enable the recipient thereof to submit explanation, but required them to straight away pull down the structure. He further points out that the proforma in which the notice issued is with full of mistakes and that the respondents did not care to correct them, even after this Court took serious exception to the same. He relied upon certain judgments of this Court to contend that resorting to demolition of the building straight away without giving an opportunity, cannot be sustained in law. ( 7 ) SRI Ghanta Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, submits that the trial Court recorded a finding that the area over which construction brought about is more than 100 square meters and in that view of the matter, G. O. does not apply. He urges that even where the construction is covered by the said G. O. , the owner of the site is under obligation to submit relevant application and plan etc. , to the Municipal Corporation before construction is commenced. He urges that even where the construction is covered by the said G. O. , the owner of the site is under obligation to submit relevant application and plan etc. , to the Municipal Corporation before construction is commenced. He submits that the notice issued under Section 452 of the Act does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. ( 8 ) SRI B. Dhananjaya, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4, submits that appellants have undertaken the construction highhandedly ignoring the rights of his clients. ( 9 ) ON the basis of the pleadings before it, trial Court framed the following issues : (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of Notice dated 13-8-1999 issued under Section 452 of H. M. C. Act is illegal, mala fide and null and void? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable for non-compliance of Section 685 of H. M. C. Act ? (4) To what relief ? ( 10 ) THE trial Court answered all the points against the appellants. The lower appellate Court framed four points for its consideration viz. , (1) Whether the suit is bad for want of issuance of a notice under Section 685 of the HMC Act ? (2) Whether the case of the plaintiffs/ appellants is covered by G. O. Ms. No. 423 ? (3) Whether the plaintiffs/appellants are entitled for the declaration and injunction sought for ? (4) Whether there are any grounds which are sufficient to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial court? ( 11 ) ALL the points were discussed together. Though, it recorded some findings in favour of the appellants, the appeal was, ultimately, dismissed. ( 12 ) THE appellants claimed a specific relief as to the legality of the notice marked as Ex. A-3. Whatever may have been the justification in issuing the same to the appellant, one thing, which needs to be noticed is that it is full of mistakes. The similar forms of notice fell for consideration before this Court in S. Rama Gopal v. M. C. H. , 1993 (3) ALT 660 . After extracting the notice in its entirety, this Court took serious exception to the Form and mode of exercise of powers. A direction was issued to ensure that the things improve. A perusal of Ex. The similar forms of notice fell for consideration before this Court in S. Rama Gopal v. M. C. H. , 1993 (3) ALT 660 . After extracting the notice in its entirety, this Court took serious exception to the Form and mode of exercise of powers. A direction was issued to ensure that the things improve. A perusal of Ex. A-3 disclose that apart from there not being any improvement, the situation has further deteriorated. The form contains several grammatical and spelling mistakes. ( 13 ) THE form contains two parts viz. , one which enables the recipient of the notice to submit explanation and the other, that straight away requires him to alter or amend the structure in question. The first para of the notice was struck down and the appellants were required to straight away remove the structure. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ex. A-3 conforms, to the letter and spirit of Section 452 of the Act. ( 14 ) THE Courts below took the view that obtaining of permission even in respect of the structures covered by G. O. is essential. It is rather difficult to subscribe to that view. The very purpose of G. O. is to exempt the persons holding such extents of property from the requirement of obtaining permission under the relevant provisions of the Act. It is true that G. O. requires the applicant to deliver the copies of drawings, pay necessary fee together with attested copies of ownership before undertaking the construction. However, if the principal object of the G. O. is taken into account, this step cannot be taken so mandatory as to render the construction illegal. It is permissible in law to submit the documents or to pay the fee even after commencement of the construction, provided, it accords with the other norms. The fact that Clause 1. 1 (v) of the G. O. , provides for the application filed with the authority, to remain in force for a period of three (3) years, adds strength to this view. ( 15 ) AFTER examining the evidence on record, the lower appellate Court took the view that the premises where the construction was undertaken does not require any sub-division. In a way, it supports the contention of the appellants that the site is less than 100 square meters, and, as such, no permission is necessary. ( 15 ) AFTER examining the evidence on record, the lower appellate Court took the view that the premises where the construction was undertaken does not require any sub-division. In a way, it supports the contention of the appellants that the site is less than 100 square meters, and, as such, no permission is necessary. Further it is not in dispute that there existed an old building in that very premises, and was assessed to tax. ( 16 ) IN view of the discussion undertaken above, it becomes clear that ex. A-3 notice issued to the appellants is not in accordance with Section 452 of the act and that the appellants have not committed such an illegality as to warrant the demolition of the premises in question straightway. At the same time, the irregularities, if any, committed by the appellants in constructing the building cannot be ignored or condoned straight away. For this purpose, the authorities concerned have to examine the matter with reference to relevant provisions of law. So far as the rights of respondents 3 and 4 are concerned, it shall always be open to them to canvass the same before the appropriate Forum. ( 17 ) HENCE, the second appeal is allowed and Ex. A-3 notice issued under section 452 of the Act is set aside. The appellants shall make fresh application before respondents 1 and 3 narrating the circumstances under which the construction was made enclosing the supporting documents. On receipt of the same, it shall be open to respondents 1 and 2 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs.