HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A. No.21 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed by the appellants/ plaintiff questioning the Judgment in M.A.No.81 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad. 2. The appellants are the tenants of a building bearing Municipal Door No.4-5-844 situated at Badi Chowdi, Sulthan Bazar and a notice for demolition of the structure given finding to be dangerous structures. Explanation was given and it was considered, an opportunity was also given under Ex.A.10 after the petitioners have filed the writ in the High Court. The building was inspected by the technical staff and also engineering staff. The lower Court came to the conclusion that the opinion of the respondents for demolition of the building is legal and it does not call for any interference. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the report of the Engineers and Technical staff is binding on the appellants? 2) Whether the order of demolition is valid? 4. POINTS: Evidently, the power of exercise of demolition is conferred under Section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short, ‘the Act’). Section 459 of the Act provides for reasonable opportunity to be given before passing the order. Therefore, the exercise of the power is only under Section 456 of the Act that order was challenged before the Chief Judge and the Chief Judge has confirmed the order. 5. Under Section 654 of the Act an appeal is provided to the Chief Judge. But, there is no further provision of second appeal to the High Court. In this connection, it is useful to refer to the decision reported in S.Trimurthy Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and others[1], wherein it was held that no second appeal lies against the order of the Chief Judge under cases of order of demolition. Therefore, the second appeal is not maintainable apart from the fact that the lower Court on consideration of the material upheld the opinion of the Commissioner that it appears to be demolished, as it is dangerous. Points are answered accordingly. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:21.10.2011 INL [1] 2007(5) ALT 62