IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2396 of 2009 Between: C. Yadaiah, S/o. C. Mallaiah, R/o. 6-3-788/24, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad Rep. by its Commissioner. 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Town Planning Section Circle No. VII at Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Zonal Commissioner. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction to declare and set aside the Notice dt. 7-2- 2009 in No. UC/1171/3/13/2009 on the file of the 2nd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of provisions of HMC Act and violative of principles of natural justice; Award costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he is the absolute owner and possessor of premises bearing No.13-3-1171/77, comprised in 145 sq. yards of site, situated at Sabji Mandi, Hyderabad, having purchased it with an old building existing in it from one Manohar Pershad Jaiswal under a registered sale deed dated 3.7.1974. As the old building was in dilapidated condition, the same was collapsed. In order to remove the debris of the collapsed building, the petitioner states that he demolished the compound wall, and after removing the debris, he constructed a compound wall around the premises. While so, he states that some persons made a complaint against him with the respondents stating that he constructed the compound wall unauthorizedly, and based on the complaint, the 1st respondent, issued a Notice dated 7.2.2009 calling upon him to show cause within 24 hours’ time as to why the compound wall should not be pulled down by the respondents and granted time till 10;00 A.M. on 10.2.2009, and that if he fails to get it demolished, the 1st respondent would get the same demolished after 10:00 A.M. on that day. Then, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 9.2.2009 to the show cause notice on the same day, and it is his grievance that the 2nd respondent, without considering his explanation, is seeking to demolish the compound wall. On 10.2.2009, when the matter came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation submitted that the respondents had already demolished the compound wall, but this fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the disputed stand taken by both the counsel, this Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the respondents demolished the compound wall at 12:00 clock itself, and in view of that he wants to work out his remedies before appropriate forum claiming the relief of damages. In the circumstances, this writ petition is closed granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies, as may be available to him, under law, before appropriate forum. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 12th February, 2009 bcj