ORDER : Nyapathy Vijay, J. The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the order dated 27.06.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 vide Roc.No.09/1031/NLR/UC/2024 under Sections 636, 452 (4) of A.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Sections 89(4), 90, 91 of A.P.MURDA Act, 2016 calling upon the Petitioners to remove the unauthorized construction within 24 hours. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The Petitioners are the owners of an extent of 66 Ankanams and 23 sq. ft. in Venkatram Puram, Ward No.15, Nellore Municipality, having purchased of the same under registered sale deed bearing Document No.3284/2019 dated 10.04.2019. Pursuant to the purchase, the Petitioners applied for building permission on 16.08.2021 for construction of individual residential building and the same was approved by Respondent No.3-Corporation vide proceedings dated 19.10.2022. 3. As per the building permit, the Petitioners were permitted to construct Ground floor + Stilt + three (3) upper floors. While so, a notice dated 19.12.2024 was issued to the Petitioners pointing out deviations in the construction in exercise of power under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and under Sections 86, 89(1 & 2) of the A.P. MR & UDA Act, 2016. As per the provisional notice, there is a violation in the setbacks on all four sides of the building as additional four floors were raised. However, deviations pointed out in the provisional notice were that; (a) premises was being used for commercial purpose and (b) there is a deviation of built-up area of 2380.1 square meters. 4. The Petitioners thereafter gave an explanation on 26.12.2024 without disputing the deviations and contended that several buildings of similar nature are there in the vicinity, but the Respondent-authority has not taken any action except against the Petitioners. It is also stated that no objection was received by the Respondent-authorities at the time of construction. After receipt of the explanation from the Petitioners, the confirmation order was passed on 02.01.2025 calling upon the Petitioners to bring down constructions within the scope of the building Rules within a period of seven (7) working days. 5. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.423 of 2025 before this Court that personal hearing was not offered to the Petitioners before passing the impugned order. 5. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.423 of 2025 before this Court that personal hearing was not offered to the Petitioners before passing the impugned order. This Court, by following the order in W.P.No.6321 of 2024, by order dated 07.01.2025, disposed of W.P.No.423 of 2025 directing the Respondent-authorities to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and thereafter pass appropriate orders within a period of four(4) weeks. 6. Accordingly, a notice of hearing was issued to the Petitioners on 17.06.2025 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, the impugned order was passed on 27.06.2025 vide Roc.No.09/1031/NLR/UC/2024. Hence, this writ petition. 7. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners and Sri A.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation. 8. Learned senior counsel contended that the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 specifies aspects which were not contemplated in the original show cause notice i.e. the non-applicability of the building Transfer Development Rights as there are no set-backs on all sides of the building, non-applicability of regularisation of constructions under Section 455A of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the building in question poses a danger. Learned senior counsel would contend that these facts were not mentioned in the provisional notice and therefore, relying on those aspects for passing the impugned order cannot be sustained. 9. Learned standing counsel on written instructions would submit that contrary to the approved building plan, the Petitioners constructed Cellar + Ground Floor + Seven (7) upper floors and that the Stilt Floor was converted as a habitable floor. It is stated that pursuant to the provisional notice dated 31.05.2024, the Petitioners did not submit any explanation, consequently a confirmation order was passed. It is stated that demolitions were carried out thereafter in the first week of January, 2025. However, pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.423 of 2025, a personal hearing was provided on 18.06.2025 to the Petitioners. It is also mentioned that the nature of building of the Petitioners has to be treated as a high-raise building and that the manner of construction reflects scant respect for building Rules and demolition is necessary so that a message is sent to the society. Photographs were also enclosed along with written instructions showing the stage of construction as on date and stated that there are absolutely no merits in the building permission of the Petitioners. 10. Photographs were also enclosed along with written instructions showing the stage of construction as on date and stated that there are absolutely no merits in the building permission of the Petitioners. 10. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court reasons as under: The original building plan was for residential building, Stilt, Ground + three (3) upper floors and contrary to the same, the Petitioners in blatant violation constructed seven (7) upper floors in an extent of 374.58 square meters (equivalent to 448 Sq.yards) without providing any set-backs on any side. It would be apt to refer to the violations pointed out in the provisional notice, which are not seriously undisputed in the writ affidavit or in the reply submitted to the provisional notice. The deviations pointed out in the provisional notice are as under: Parameter As per Plan As on Ground Deviation Setback Front (in meters) 3 0.3 2.7 Setback Rear (in meters) 2 0.3 1.7 Setback Side 1 (in meters) 2 0.3 1.7 Setback Side 2 (in meters) 2 0.3 1.7 No. of Floors 5 9 4 Land Usage RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL Deviation Parking (in sqm) 216.02 350 0 Road Widening (in sqm) 0 0 0 Built Up Area (in Sqm) 1119.9 3500 2360.1 11. A reading of the above would show that not a single column is in consonance with the building right from the change of usage of land from residential to commercial, near zero set-backs on all sides and laying (04) additional floors. The construction in question reflects absolute disregard to building laws and law per se. The photographs along with written instructions of the standing counsel would reflect the gravity of the abuse of the building plan given in favour of the Petitioners. 12. As rightly contended by the standing counsel for the Respondent- corporation, even after ignoring the observations in the impugned order, non-applicability of Transfer Development Rights and post construction regularisation under Section 455A of the A.P.Municipal Corporation Act, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the Petitioners in seeking to sustain such constructions. 13. It would be appropriate to refer to a judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court in Priyanka Estates International (P) Ltd. v. State of Assam, (2010) 2 SCC 27 , where unauthorised floors were constructed contrary to the building plan. 13. It would be appropriate to refer to a judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court in Priyanka Estates International (P) Ltd. v. State of Assam, (2010) 2 SCC 27 , where unauthorised floors were constructed contrary to the building plan. Even though flats in the unauthorised floors were sold, the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to halt demolition and held that illegal constructions should be dealt firmly. The paragraphs 55 and 56 thereof are extracted below: 55. It is a matter of common knowledge that illegal and unauthorised constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are on rise, may be due to paucity of land in big cities. Such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands otherwise builders/colonisers would continue to build or construct beyond the sanctioned and approved plans and would still go scot-free. Ultimately, it is the flat owners who fall prey to such activities as the ultimate desire of a common man is to have a shelter of his own. Such unlawful constructions are definitely against the public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multistoreyed buildings. To some extent both parties can be said to be equally responsible for this. Still the greater loss would be of those flat owners whose flats are to be demolished as compared to the builder. 56. Even though on earlier occasions also, under similar circumstances, there have been judgments of this Court which should have been a pointer to all the builders that raising unauthorised construction never pays and is against the interest of society at large, but, no heed has been given to it by the builders. Rules, regulations and bye-laws are made by Corporations or by Development Authorities, taking in view the larger public interest of the society and it is a bounden duty of the citizens to obey and follow such rules which are made for their benefit. If unauthorised constructions are allowed to stand or given a seal of approval by court then it is bound to affect the public at large. An individual has a right, including a fundamental right, within a reasonable limit, it inroads the public rights leading to public inconvenience, therefore, it is to be curtailed to that extent. 14. If unauthorised constructions are allowed to stand or given a seal of approval by court then it is bound to affect the public at large. An individual has a right, including a fundamental right, within a reasonable limit, it inroads the public rights leading to public inconvenience, therefore, it is to be curtailed to that extent. 14. A similar view was expressed in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation., (2013) 5 SCC 336 declaring that there should be zero tolerance to illegal constructions and persons who treat law to be sub-servient. The paragraphs 8 and 9 are extracted below; 8. What needs to be emphasised is that illegal and unauthorised constructions of buildings and other structures not only violate the municipal laws and the concept of planned development of the particular area but also affect various fundamental and constitutional rights of other persons. The common man feels cheated when he finds that those making illegal and unauthorised constructions are supported by the people entrusted with the duty of preparing and executing master plan/development plan/zonal plan. The reports of demolition of hutments and jhuggi jhopris belonging to the poor and disadvantaged section of the society frequently appear in the print media but one seldom gets to read about demolition of illegally/unauthorisedly constructed multi-storeyed structures raised by economically affluent people. The failure of the State apparatus to take prompt action to demolish such illegal constructions has convinced the citizens that planning laws are enforced only against poor and all compromises are made by the State machinery when it is required to deal with those who have money power or unholy nexus with the power corridors. 9. We have prefaced disposal of this appeal by taking cognizance of the precedents in which this Court held that there should be no judicial tolerance of illegal and unauthorised constructions by those who treat the law to be their subservient, but are happy to note that the functionaries and officers of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (for short “the Corporation”) have been extremely vigilant and taken steps for enforcing the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (for short “the 1980 Act”) and the Rules framed thereunder for demolition of illegal construction raised by Respondent 7. This has given a ray of hope to the residents of Kolkata that there will be zero tolerance against illegal and unauthorised constructions and those indulging in such activities will not be spared. 15. Lastly, in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 3767 after referring to all the judgements regarding illegal constructions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 19 held as follows; 19. In a catena of decisions, this Court has categorically held that illegally of unauthorized construction cannot be perpetuated. If the construction is made in contravention of the Acts/Rules, it would be construed as illegal and unauthorized construction, which has to be necessarily demolished. It cannot be legitimized or protected solely under the ruse of the passage of time or citing inaction of the authorities or by taking recourse to the excuse that substantial money has been spent on the said construction. 16. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave directions at paragrapgh 21 to all the authorities regarding building constructions. Among the directions given are that till completion/occupancy certificate is produced, no water, sewage, electricity connections etc., nor trade licence should be given. 17. Therefore, this Court considering the magnitude of deviation in construction of the building in question is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. However, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the 24 hours of time provided to the Petitioners for carrying out the demolition is too short time and reasonable time should be provided to the Petitioners to carry out the demolition and to bring the building within the scope of A.P.Building Rules of 2017. 18. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Petitioners are provided time of three (3) weeks from today to carry out the demolitions and bring the building within the scope of A.P.Building Rules, 2017 and in accordance with the building plan approved in favour of the Petitioners vide permit No.1031/1364/B/NMC/VKTPRM/2021 dated 19.10.2022. (ii) In the time provided, the Petitioners shall remove the illegal and unauthorised floors and also remove constructions on all sides of the building in question and provide set-backs on all sides of the building as per the building plan approved vide permit No.1031/1364/B/NMC/VKTPRM/2021 dated 19.10.2022. (ii) In the time provided, the Petitioners shall remove the illegal and unauthorised floors and also remove constructions on all sides of the building in question and provide set-backs on all sides of the building as per the building plan approved vide permit No.1031/1364/B/NMC/VKTPRM/2021 dated 19.10.2022. (iii) In default, the Respondent-corporation shall proceed with demolition of the illegal and unauthorised floors in the building in question and remove constructions on all sides and provide setbacks on all sides of the building as per the approved building plan as expeditiously as possible. (iv) No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.