THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.2174 OF 2010 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus directing respondent No.1 to demolish the illegal constructions made by respondent Nos.3 to 5 and construct the necessary compound wall around the block consisting of the flats of the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 after collecting necessary amounts from all the flat owners of the block. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No.1 in the year 1986 for purchase of flat bearing No.303 in Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Colony, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. As per the said agreement, no vendee shall make any constructions on the appurtenant land and alter the nature of the appurtenant land of the block, but contrary to that, respondent Nos.3 to 5 constructed compound walls, bathrooms and toilets in the common area meant for usage by all the flat owners. There is no specific compound wall constructed by the Housing Board to any of the blocks including the block in which the flat of the petitioner is located. Aggrieved by the said illegal constructions, petitioner made number of representations to the authorities, but of no use. The petitioner filed Consumer Case No.732 of 2006 on the file of the District Consumer Forum II at Visakhapatnam seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to remove all the illegal constructions. When a show cause notice was issued to respondent Nos.3 to 5, they filed W.P.No.729 of 2007 against respondent No.1 not to demolish the constructions and the same was disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take immediate steps to get a compound wall constructed for the block in the manner provided for under G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 20.04.1992 and till such a compound wall is constructed, they shall not demolish the constructed wall. Basing on the observations made in W.P.No.729 of 2007, the Consumer Forum Case No.732 of 2006 was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner made a representation to the authorities of respondent No.1 on 28.05.2009 seeking for implementation of the orders in W.P.No.729 of 2007. The Executive Engineer gave a reply on 03.07.2009 stating that the respondent Housing Board issued letters to all the allottees of the block including the petitioner with a request to apply permission jointly for construction of the compound wall around the block as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.48 and it is the responsibility and obligation of all the allottees of block to obtain permission to have the compound wall at their costs, but so far, no such request was made and since the compound wall has to be constructed at the costs of the allottees of the block, the respondent Board was not be in a position to provide compound wall to the block. Inspite of making further representations also, there is no use. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 stating that as per Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Use of appurtenant land of Multi-Storeyed Buildings) Regulations, 1991, (for short, ‘the Regulations’) issued by G.O.Ms.No.48 (HB2) Housing, dated 20.04.1992, permission may be granted by the A.P.Housing Board for construction of a compound wall around the entire block by all the allottees of the said block. The Regulations also empower the A.P.Housing Board to dismantle the unauthorized structures, if any, made on the appurtenant land of the building and collect the damages from the flat owners responsible for the illegal constructions. The role of the A.P.Housing Board with regard to construction of the compound wall around the block is only to grant permission if all the flat owners seek such permission. The Board issued letters on 06.06.2007 to all the eight flat owners of the block including the petitioner asking them to apply for permission for construction of the compound wall around their block, but there was no response. When they apply, the A.P.Housing Board is ready to accord necessary permission in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.48 and hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Respondent No.3 filed counter-affidavit stating that the Colony is far away from Visakhapatnam Town and there is no protection for these flats. She along with other flat owners made a representation to respondent No.1 for construction of compound wall for the safety from animals and pigs causing damage to the plants and pipelines, but there was no response. As there is no safety, all the flat owners constructed the compound wall without causing any inconvenience to any other owners of the block and not altered the existing structure or made any extra rooms. The flat owners of first floor also gave their consent for the construction of the compound wall and all the flat owners made their own arrangements putting grills and compound wall for their safety. The flat of respondent No.3 is a corner one and there is no protection from animals and snakes. The petitioner himself made alterations and made grills to his flat and caused harassment to others. Respondent No.3 has not caused any inconvenience to the petitioner nor violated any conditions stipulated in the sale deed nor made any illegal constructions, but only protected the property and she is ready to cooperate with respondent Nos.1 and 2 and particularly, the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that inspite of giving representations to respondent No.1 and 2, they are not taking any steps to construct the compound wall and therefore, he prays to issue a direction to respondent No.1 and 2 to construct the compound wall. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the compound wall is to be constructed by the owners of the flats and they have to obtain permission from the A.P.Housing Board for construction of compound wall and if the owners apply for permission, appropriate decision would be taken by the A.P.Housing Board for granting permission for construction of the compound wall. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 is not taking any steps to demolish the illegal constructions made by respondent Nos.3 to 5 and further request to construct the necessary compound wall around the block consisting of the flats of the petitioner and others. Insofar as the construction of the compound wall is concerned, it is the flat owners, who have to construct the compound wall, but they have to do so after obtaining permission from the A.P.Housing Board. Therefore, all the flat owners shall file an application before respondent No.1 for construction of the compound wall. Insofar as demolition of illegal constructions made by respondent Nos.3 to 5 is concerned, respondent No.1 shall take appropriate decision in removing the illegal constructions, if any, in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to respondent Nos.3 to 5. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 09th December, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.2174 OF 2010 Date:09.12.2011 AMD