IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8916 of 2003 Between: Adnan Bin Khalid Jabri, S/o Khalid Bin Aslam Jabri, R/O.10-4-7/2, Humayunnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Khairatabad Division, Khairatbad, Hyderabad. .....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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent through its subbordinates in trying to demolish the wall around nala in front of my petitioners house bearing no.10-4-7/2,at Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad, as illegal in jurisdiction and violation of the principles of natural justice apart from the same being in violation of article 14,21 of the constitution of India and consequential restrain the respondent from demolishing the said structure except in accordance with the law Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : . HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBASH REDDY W.P.No.8916 of 2003 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in taking steps for demolition of the wall constructed in front of the petitioner’s house bearing Door No.10-4-7/2, situated at Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad, as illegal. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the house bearing No. 10-4-7/1 (which is reallotted as house bearing No.10-4-7/2), which was constructed in the open site admeasuring 177.7 square yards, having purchased under a registered sale deed bearing document No.2090/1986. 3. It is stated that after purchase of site, he has constructed the house in the year 1987 and there is a drainage nala towards southern side of his site. It is submitted that as bad smell was emanating from the said nala and also as snakes, pigs, buffaloes etc., are entering his house from the nala, he has constructed a wall in front of his house. It is his grievance that though the said wall was constructed a long back, respondent is taking steps for its demolition, without giving any prior opportunity or notice to him. 4. At the stage of admission, this Court, by order dated 06-05- 2003, granted interim directions, staying demolition, as otherwise than accordance with due process of law. The said order is continued all along during the pendency of the writ petition and no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact, it is the duty of the Municipal Corporation to construct such walls. In view of the provisions under Section 316 of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent-Municipality to cover all drains and cesspools. In spite of the same, they did not do their statutory duty, and when the wall is constructed by the petitioner with his own funds, it is sought to be demolished without any valid reason. 6. As per the scheme of the provisions under Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, even for removal of unauthorized construction, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent to issue notice and give opportunity to the petitioner before taking steps for demolition 7. As it is the case of the petitioner that no such opportunity was given to him before taking steps for demolition, and in the absence of any counter affidavit, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent not to take any steps for demolition of the wall constructed by the petitioner, without following due process of law. It is made clear that if any construction with regard to the wall in question is made without any permission, this order will not preclude the respondent to give notice for demolition, and to take further steps in accordance with law by providing opportunity to the petitioner. 8. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ 1st July 2009 KVR