THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.15288 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the owners of land in survey Nos.172, 174 to 181 and 183 to 187 of Gudimalkapur Village, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad. They submitted an application on 27.10.2009 to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the 1st respondent herein, seeking permission to raise fencing, with sheds enclosing the land. On the assumption that the request was neither rejected, nor acceded to and that deemed permission had accrued to them, the petitioners had put the fencing. The Corporation issued a show cause notice, dated 22.06.2010, requiring the petitioners to remove the fencing. The petitioners submitted explanation on 28.06.2010. This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to declare that permission is deemed to have accrued to the petitioners in terms of Section 337 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and that the issue relating to construction of compound wall has been attained finality. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation. Section 437 of the Act provides that, in case an application filed by a citizen seeking permission to construct is not disposed of, in any manner for a particular period, the permission shall be deemed to have been accorded. The petitioners claim that the application was made on 27.10.2009. They are under the impression that no steps were taken on the application. The respondents rejected the application on the same day. However, there is some uncertainty as to the service of the order. The amount of Rs.32,000/- deposited as permission fee by the petitioners is retained by the Corporation. Initially, a show cause notice dated 16.10.2009 was issued by the Corporation to the petitioners stating that the fencing work undertaken by them is contrary to the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.6212 of 2009. That was challenged in W.P.No.22325 of 2009. The writ petition was allowed on 21.10.2009 stating that the show cause notices were not served upon the petitioners. That was followed by another show cause notice dated 22.06.2010. There is no reference either to the application submitted by the petitioners seeking permission or rejection thereof. Further, the notice is not clear as to whether the petitioners just put up a fencing or constructed a compound wall. In their explanation, the petitioners stated that the fencing was arranged to prevent encroachment of the property by unsocial elements. It is not uncommon in the city of Hyderabad that vacant sites are indiscriminately occupied by land grabbers. In the order of rejection, no reasons whatever are stated. It cannot be said that the Corporation has suffered any prejudice, on account of the fencing put by the petitioners. The matter relating to such a small aspect can be given a quietus, duly protecting the interests of the Corporation. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the Corporation shall not demolish the fencing arranged by the petitioners and that they, in turn, shall not undertake any construct without specific permission from the Corporation. They shall also ensure that the height of fencing does not exceed 5 feet and that the activities undertaken inside the fencing are visible from outside. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11.03.2011. GJ