IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5429 of 2004 Between: Nayi Brahmana Sangham, Koratla A Society Regd., under Society Registration Act, rep., by its President Pendem Narsaiah, s/o Muthaiah, Occ:barber, r/o Koratla, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Koratla Municipality, rep., by its Commissioner, Koratla Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT 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 pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent in threatening to demolish the compound wall which is progress and is not more than 2 metres appurtenant to the H.No.1-1-1040 situated at Jhansi Road, Koratla, Karimnagar District as null and void consequently direct the respondent not to demolish any portion of the compound wall which is in progress not exceeding 2 metres appurtenant of the H.No.1-1-1040 Jhansi Road, Koratla, Karimnagar District except due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA(SC FOR MPL(TA)) THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5429 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of respondent in threatening to demolish the compound wall appurtenant to H.No.1-1-1040 situated at Jhansi Road, Koratla, Karimnagar District, as illegal, and consequently, to direct the respondent not to demolish any portion of the compound wall except by following due process of law. It is the case of the petitioner-Society that it was allotted land admeasuring 153.33 sq. yards in Jhansi Road, Koratla, by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for construction of a building to conduct developmental activities to the barbers, and that a hall and two rooms were constructed, leaving a small plot of land appurtenant to the building. Petitioner-Society states that as attempts were made to encroach upon the said plot, it has constructed a compound wall around, which is less than 2 metres in height, and that no permission is required for construction of compound such wall, as the same does not fall within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’). The grievance of the petitioner-Society is that the respondent-Municipality is taking steps to demolish the said wall without issuing any notice. At the stage of admission, this Court, by an order dated 23.03.2004, directed the parties to maintain status quo. The said order was extended by an order, dated 06.04.2004, and the same is in force till date. Though the writ petition is of the year 2004, the respondent-Municipality has not chosen to file counter. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. It is categorically averred in the affidavit filed by the petitioner-Society that the respondent-Municipality was taking steps to demolish the compound wall without issuing any notice to them. Respondent-Municipality is empowered to order for removal of any constructions made by any person only by following the procedure as contemplated under Section 228 of the Act. Before passing an order for removal of structures, a provisional order need to be passed under Section 228(1) of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the absence of any counter by the respondent-Municipality, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent-Municipality not to take any steps to demolish the compound wall of the petitioner, except by following due process of law. However, it is made clear that if any constructions are made in deviation to the plan, or unauthorizedly, it is open for the respondent-Municipality to initiate proceedings under Section 228 of the Act, and take steps in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Date:22.07.2009 usd