IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23822 of 2008 Between: Lopelli, W/o. L. Satyanarayana Rao, R/o. H.No. 2-4-1615/1, Ashoka Colony, Hanmakonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar. 2 The Town Planning Officer, Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner's property admeasuring 242 sq.yards in Survey No. 920/4 of Rampur Village of Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar by declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, bad, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.J.KANAKAIAH The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by L.Jyothi assailing the action of the respondents in contemplating to demolish the compound wall constructed by her. The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of land admeasuring 242 square yards in Rampur Village of Karimnagar Municipality from one Jalagam Muralidhar Rao, who is the power of attorney holder of Govind Singh, under a registered sale deed dated 15.1.1994. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents are threatening to demolish the constructions made by her without following the due process of law. When the writ petition came up for admission, S r i J.Kanakaiah, learned standing counsel of Karimnagar Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of the respondents. The factual aspect of the petitioner constructing a compound wall is not contradicted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow due process of law in the event the compound wall constructed by the petitioner is required to be demolished. No costs. __________ 03-11-2008 rkk