IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 25672 of 2001 BETWEEN: Smt. P. Sangeetha, W/o. Nirdosh Reddy, R/o. Ayodhya Nagar Colony, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "WRIT OF MANDAMUS" declaring the action of the Respondent in issuing the proceeding No,.5322/TPS/ACP/C5 IV 8/2001 dated 12.12.2001 directing to remove the compound wall constructed by the petitioner in plot No., 65-A MLAS Colony, Road No. 12 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set - aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.SUDARSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MRS KALPANA EKBOTE GP FOR MUN. ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner questions the notice issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad dated 12.12.2001 in No.5322/TPS/ACP/C5/IV8/2001 for removal of the compound wall constructed on the open space of the park area of the approved layout of Venkateswara Cooperative Housing Society (for short ‘the Society’). Petitioner submits that she purchased Plot No.65 A admeasuring 600 sq. yards from the society and obtained sanction for construction of the building in File No.327/Open/8/95 and permit No.8/70 dated 17.10.1995 and constructed the building strictly as per the sanction plan. While so, the respondent issued the impugned notice without giving any opportunity and without specifying the nature of encroachment and the construction of the compound wall in the lay out. 2. This Court while admitting the writ petition directed the respondents not to demolish the compound wall constructed by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice dated 12.12.2001. 3. Counter has been filed stating that the petitioner encroached the park area to an extent of 191.55 sq. yards and got the total extent of 791.5 sq. yards in her possession and constructed the compound wall. 4. The impugned notice does not indicate that the petitioner encroached an extent of 191.55 sq. yards, which is mentioned in the counter. However, as the impugned notice has been issued passed without giving any notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the impugned notice is unsustainable, as the same is against the principles of natural justice. The impugned notice is set aside keeping it open to the respondent to issue a fresh show cause notice for removal of the encroachment, if any, on the park area and take appropriate action in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 18, 2008 DSK