THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.27199 of 2011 Dated 29th September, 2011 Between: Amarjyothi and others …Petitioners And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Murli Narayan Bung Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri C.Damodar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the structure raised by the petitioners in property bearing No.4-1-306/1 & 2 of Mehar Mandir, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 not to take further action in pursuance of notice, dated 06.09.2011. The averments contained in the affidavit filed by the petitioners would show that there are civil disputes between the petitioners on the one hand and respondent Nos.2 to 4 on the other and an order of status quo between the parties is subsisting in I.A.No.1386 of 2010 in O.S.No.192 of 2010 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Through letter, dated 06.09.2011, the Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section, Circle No.8, Central Zone, GHMC, Hyderabad, while stating that the petitioners have undertaken unauthorised construction in the above-mentioned premises in violation of the order of status quo granted by the civil Court, has called upon the petitioners to submit ownership documents and municipal sanctioned plan pertaining to the construction of compound wall within three days. The petitioners have given a reply on 14.09.2011 through their lawyer. The present writ petition is filed with the apprehension that the Assistant City Planner is likely to demolish the wall. In my opinion, unless a decision is taken on the notice, dated 06.09.2011, and the procedure envisaged under Sections 452 and 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 is followed, the construction raised by the petitioners cannot be dismantled. Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to take a decision on the notice, dated 06.09.2011, in the light of the explanation submitted by the petitioners before seeking to proceed further, if it is convinced that the compound wall raised by the petitioners is unauthorised. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.33586 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th September, 2011 VGB