IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10496 of 2008 Between: J.Kista Reddy S/o.Sathi Reddy R/o.Manoorabad(V) Saroornagar(M) G.H.M.C Hyd ..... PETITIONER AND 1 G.H.M.C Tank Bund Road Hyderabad Rep.by its Commissioner 2 G.H.M.C L.B Nagar Circle at L.B Nagar Hyderabad Rep.by its Deputy Commissioner .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue of the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the compound wall on the property of petitioner bearing sy No.69 to 76 situated at Mansoorabad(V) Saroornagar(M) R.R Dist as illegal by setting aside the impugned notice dt.29-4-2008 in G2/TP12/2008 on the file of the 2nd respondent by directing the respondents not to demolish the compound wall made by the petitioner in the above property Award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by J.Kista Reddy assailing the action of the respondents in issuing notice dated 29.04.2008 directing him to stop the construction of compound wall. 2. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of Ac.4.00 of land in Survey Nos.69 to 76, situated at Mansoorabad village of Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Initially, he owned Ac.15.21 guntas of land in Survey Nos.69 to 76 of Mansoorabad village. He sold the land except four acres retained in his possession. According to him, he constructed a compound wall around the four acres of land when the land was within the municipal limits of L.B.Nagar Municipality. The respondents issued notice dated 29.04.2008 calling upon him to stop the construction of compound wall. The notice impugned in the writ petition is purported to have been issued under Section 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’). 3. When the writ petition came up for admission on 02.05.2008, an interim order came to be passed directing the respondents not to dismantle the compound wall. The interim order passed on 02.05.2008 reads as hereunder: “Sri Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondent – Municipal Corporation. He seeks time to file counter. Call the matter on 17.06.2008. In the meantime, the compound wall said to have been constructed by the writ petitioner around the land situated in Sy.No.69 to 76 at Mansurabad village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District shall not be dismantled by the respondent Corporation. The petitioner shall also undertake not to make any additions to the existing structures. He shall file a report of the status and the extent of the constructions made by him so far within next three days before the Deputy Commissioner concerned of the Corporation.” 4. Respondents filed counter-affidavit. S.S.K.Koudinya, Deputy Commissioner, L.B.Nagar Circle, GHMC, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner failed to obtain prior permission before proceeding with the construction of compound wall, which is mandatory under Section 2(3) read with Section 428 of the Act and also Section 388 of the Act for subdivision/layout. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the officials of the respondents-Corporation visited the site in question and requested the petitioner not to proceed with the construction of the compound wall without obtaining prior permission from the respondents-Corporation. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner constructed the compound wall when the land was within the limits of L.B.Nagar Municipality and he is not putting up any new constructions thereon. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation submits that the petitioner has not placed on record any evidence to show that he constructed the compound wall while the land was within limits of L.B.Nagar Municipality. 8. The notice is dated 29.04.2088 and whereas the petitioner approached this Court on 02.05.2008 and secured the interim order stated supra. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is required to be given an opportunity to putforth his case before the respondents-Corporation. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage permitting the petitioner to submit his explanation to the respondents-Corporation treating the notice impugned in the writ petition as show-cause notice within three weeks from today. Thereupon, the respondents shall consider the explanation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:12th August, 2008. Note: Issue C.C. within three days. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}