THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22429 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of a plot of 1322 square yards, which is part of Sector 11 of MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam. It is said to be near the coast of Bay of Bengal. She constructed a compound wall around the plot. The respondent issued a notice, dated 18.10.2007 under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), requiring the petitioner to remove the compound wall and shed within 24 hours from the date of receipt of notice. It was alleged that a notice dated 20.09.2007 under Section 452 of the Act was issued to the petitioner mentioning that the plot is in Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) – III area and that the construction of compound wall is in violation of Coastal Regulatory Zone Regulations. The respondent has also alleged that the petitioner did not submit her explanation. This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned notice. The petitioner contends that the plot is in CRZ-II and the allegation that it is in CRZ-III, is incorrect. It is also stated that no notice under Section 452 of the Act was served upon her. While admitting the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order, on 23.10.2007, directing that the petitioner shall treat the impugned notice as the one under Section 452 of the Act and shall submit explanation within two weeks. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 29.10.22007. Taking the same into account, the respondent has passed an order, dated 16.02.2008, reiterating its earlier stand. The respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit dealing with various contentions urged by the petitioner. Heard Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has constructed just a compound wall and no building exists on the plot. The only ground on which the respondent initiated steps for demolition of the compound wall is that the land is within the CRZ–III area, where no construction is permitted. In her explanation, the petitioner stated that the land is in CRZ-II, where construction with certain conditions, is permitted. Supporting material is also filed. The construction of compound wall, by itself, cannot be treated as violation of CRZ Regulations. In case the petitioner submits an application seeking permission to construct, the respondent can raise all the objections. The occasion would arise for examination of the relevant records and regulations, vis-à-vis the plot of land. Mere demolition of compound wall is not going to advance the things in favour of the respondent, or any authority. On the other hand, the land would be exposed to encroachments, or for use by unlawful agencies. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice as well as the order, dated 16.02.2008, are set aside. It is made clear that the question as to whether the plot owned by the petitioner is within CRZ-II or CRZ-III shall be considered, as and when she submits an application seeking permission to construct building. None of the observations made in the impugned proceedings shall be treated as final pronouncements. The matter shall be considered on its own merits, as and when the application is filed. It is also directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to make any construction, without specific permission from the Corporation. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.24.02.2011. GJ