IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9538 of 2004 Between : Pendem Muthyalu S/o Gangadhar, Barber R/o H. No. 1-1-1039 Koratla Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND The Koratla Municipality, rep by 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 or any other appropriate Writ declaring the action of respondent in threatening/earmarking to demolish the compound wall of the petitioner which is not more than 2 metres appurtenant to his H. No. 1-1-1039 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 not exceeding 2 metres appurtenant to the petitioners H. No. 1-1-1039 Jhansi Road, Koratla Karimnagar district except due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent : MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks declaration by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of respondent- Municipality in taking steps for demolition of the compound wall in the land appurtenant to his house bearing No.1-1- 1039, situated at Jhansi Road at Koratla of Karimnagar District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a landless poor person and that he was allotted land admeasuring 5 cents in Survey No.110 at Jhansi Road of Koratla in Karimnagar District. It is stated that on the said piece of land, he has constructed a house by taking due permission from the respondent-Municipality. It is the case of the petitioner that adjoining his house, there is an open land, and to save the said land, he has constructed a compound wall of less than two metres. It is his case that in view of the definition of ‘building’ as defined under Section 2 (3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), no permission need be taken for construction of such compound wall of less than two metres height. His grievance is that though there is no need to take any permission for construction of such compound wall, the respondent-Municipality is taking steps for demolition of the compound wall without issuing any prior notice or opportunity to him. They made such an attempt on 12.06.2004. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. At the stage of admission, by an order, dated 15.06.2004, this Court directed the respondent- Municipality to maintain status quo. Said order continued all along. Though the writ petition is of 2004, no counter affidavit is filed, denying the allegations made by the petitioner. If any unauthorized constructions are to be removed, there is a procedure contemplated under Section 228 of the Act. Before passing a final order for removal of unauthorized constructions, if any, it is obligatory on the part of respondent-Municipality to pass a provisional order under Section 228 (1) of the Act. In this case, it is specifically stated that without issuing any prior notice, the authorities of the respondent-Municipality went to the site on 12.06.2004 and tried to demolish the compound wall constructed by the petitioner. In view of the allegations made in the writ petition, and further, in view of the order passed by this Court on 15.06.2004, which is in force since then, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent- Municipality not to take any steps for demolition of the compound wall of the petitioner as otherwise than due process of law. However, it is made clear that if any unauthorized constructions are there, this order will not preclude the respondent-Municipality to take steps in accordance with law by issuing necessary notice to the petitioner. 4. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd July 2009 ajr