IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.17876 and 20353 of 2008 W.P.No.17876 of 2008 Between: M. Srikanth Reddy … Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri J. Venkateswara Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: Dr. Y. Padmavathi Counsel for respondents 3&4: Sri C.B. Ramamohan Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.17876 and 20353 of 2008 COMMON ORDER:- Writ Petition No.17876 of 2008 is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in taking action against respondent Nos.3 and 4 for conversion of the land admeasuring Ac.12.15 guntas in Sy.No.146 of Kondapur Village, Ranga Reddy District into plots and construction of compound wall over it, as illegal and arbitrary. Writ Petition No.20353 of 2008 has been filed by respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.17876 of 2008 and others for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 16.09.2008, whereby a notice under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”) has been issued by respondent No.3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in Writ Petition No.20353 of 2008. The petitioners stated that the original owners of the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.146 of Kondapur Village have obtained approval of layout from the Kondapur Gram Panchayat and sold the same to the Alind Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad under registered sale deeds and that thereafter the petitioners purchased the said land from the said society in the year 1992 for valuable sale consideration under registered documents. It is their further case that the Kondapur village was subsequently brought under the limits of Serilingampally Municipality and that in view of the abnormal increase in the value of the properties in the vicinity, the petitioners’ vendors started interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. That in order to protect the property from encroachments, the petitioners have raised compound wall around the property to a height of two meters, that as the land was converted into plots under an unauthorised layout, the petitioners made an application on 19.07.2008 for regularisation of the layout, which is pending before the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. When respondent No.3 gave a notice for demolition of the compound wall, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.15283 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to the respondents to follow due process of law. Thereafter, on 30.07.2008, respondent No.3 issued a notice calling for the petitioners’ explanation as to why the compound wall, constructed without permission, should not be demolished. While giving reply to the said notice to the effect that the compound wall was constructed on the area under the municipality, which did not require no permission, the petitioners have submitted an application on 31.07.2008 for grant of permission to construct the compound wall. However, the said application for grant of permission was rejected by respondent No.3 vide his endorsement, dated 06.08.2008 on the ground that the compound wall was raised in an unauthorised layout. After filing of Writ Petition No.20353 of 2008, respondent Nos.4 and 5 were added as parties to Writ Petition No.17876 of 2008 at their instance. In their counter affidavit they have inter alia stated that the petitioners filed this Writ Petition by suppressing the material facts. According to them, the plea of the petitioners that the original owners have prepared the layout with the permission of the Gram Panchayat is false, that the civil suit filed by them against the petitioners for partition and separate possession is pending in O.S.No.788 of 2008 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, that the plaint schedule property comprises Ac.12.15 guntas in Sy.No.146 of Kondapur Village and that the petitioners are arrayed as defendant Nos.13 to 18 in the said suit. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is inter alia stated that the plots over which the petitioners have been making claim do not form part of an approved layout, that the petitioners’ application dated 19.07.2008 for regularisation of the illegal layout under LRS scheme does not relate to compound wall and that the petitioners have recently constructed the compound wall unauthorisedly without obtaining permission. It is further averred that after disposal of Writ Petition No.15283 of 2008, the official respondents have issued notice under Section 452 of the Act on 30.07.2008 giving the petitioners seven days’ time for showing cause against the proposal to remove the compound wall and that while giving reply thereto, the petitioners made an application on 01.08.2008 for permission to construct the compound wall and as the said application was not in accordance with law, the same was rejected by letter, dated 08.08.2008. That as the compound wall was raised without permission, the impugned notice under Section 636 of the Act was issued, which does not call for any interference of this Court. I have heard Sri C.B. Ramamohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents. From the facts noted above, it is clear that the petitioners have raised compound wall around Ac.5.00 of land, which is the subject matter of a dispute in a civil suit between them and the impleaded respondents. The said compound wall was raised without any permission. The application filed by the petitioners for permission to construct the compound wall was rejected. The petitioners have not questioned the rejection order. In this admitted fact situation, the notice issued under Section 636 of the Act cannot be said to be either illegal or arbitrary. Admittedly, a compound wall falls within the definition of ‘Building’ as defined in Section 2(3) of the Act. Any building constructed without permission is liable to be removed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have accordingly initiated proceedings by issuing notice under Section 452 followed by the further notice under Section 636 of the Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the application filed by their clients for regularisation of the layout is pending, there is no justification for removal of the compound wall is without merit because the issue relating to regularisation of layout has no nexus with the issue pertaining to construction of compound wall. Even if the layout is regularised, the petitioners are not entitled to raise the compound wall without prior permission. Hence, both these issues cannot be linked up with each other. As the compound wall was constructed without permission and the application of the petitioners for permission of construction of compound wall was rejected, which rejection has attained finality, the respondents are entitled to proceed in accordance with law for removal of the compound wall. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notice issued under Section 636 of the Act. For the abovementioned reasons, Writ Petition No.20353 of 2008 is dismissed. As a corollary to dismissal of Writ Petition No.20353 of 2008, Writ Petition No.17876 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions in the manner indicated above, interim order granted on 17.09.2008 in Writ Petition No.20353 of 2008 is vacated and all the miscellaneous applications pending in these Writ Petitions are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.08.2011 ES