IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 10754 of 2008 Between: T. Narender Rao, W/o. Late T. Balraj, R/o. Premises No. 18-5-426, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner, Circle -V GHMC, Sardarmahal, Charminar, Hyderabad. 3 D. Krishna, S/o. D. Anantaiah, R/o. 20-2-735/1, Hussani Alam, Near Nursing Bahvan Temple, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ or order more in the nature of Mandamus, in declaring the notice bearing No.83 dated 8-5-2008 by the Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional consequently setting aside the same, int he interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.GOVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for respondents 1 & 2. This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus declaring the notice bearing No.83 dated 8.5.2008 issued by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the same. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing municipal No.18-5-426, admeasuring 2340 sq.yds. situated at outside Lal Darwaza, Hyderabad. One Balraj and Jagdish having no manner of right and title in respect of the house property of the petitioner, tried to interfere with his peaceful possession and threatened him with dire consequences. They came to his house property on 23.6.2005 along with some anti-social elements and started demolishing the eastern side of the structures. Under those circumstances, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No. 4094 of 2005 before the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for perpetual injunction. The same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit, the petitioner preferred A.S.No.634 of 2006 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said appeal was allowed by reversing the findings of the trial Court and the suit was decreed granting permanent injunction restraining Balraj and Jagdish from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject-house property. It is alleged that the first respondent, at the instance of third respondent issued the impugned notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 stating that the petitioner has constructed the house unauthorisedly and he was directed to show cause as to why the portion, which is said to be constructed unauthorisedly, should not be removed, within 14 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice has been issued only at the instance of the third respondent and others who suffered a decree of perpetual injunction in the suit instituted by the petitioner and in fact, the petitioner has not made any unauthorized constructions and if the respondents 1 & 2 demolishes the premises, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 submits that the petitioner may be directed to submit his explanation in response to the impugned notice and the respondent authorities may be directed to dispose of the same. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made on either side, the petitioner is directed to submit his explanation in response to the impugned notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders in the matter. Till such time, there shall not be any demolition of the structures of the petitioner. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ G.CHANDRAIAH. J 14th MAY, 2008 Tsr. To 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner, Circle -V GHMC, Sardarmahal, Charminar, Hyderabad. 3. Two C.D. copies.