HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.14253 of 2005 Date: December 14, 2009 Between: Dr. K. Rajsekhar Rao, S/o. K. Bhupathi Rao, Aged about 35 years, R/o.57/2, R.T. Municipal Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad, and another … Petitioners And Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tankbund, Hyderabad and three others … Respondents Order: Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing mulgies, which are stated to be in their possession, in H.No.16-11-310/14/6/3, situated at Saleemnagar, Malakpet, as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioners claim to be in possession of one mulgi each in the aforesaid premises, owned by the fourth respondent, in the capacity of tenants. It is their grievance that the said mulgis are sought to be demolished, which are the only structures left after demolition of other portion of the premises in question, at the instance of the fourth respondent, for the purpose of construction of a commercial complex. It is their case that as they are in actual and physical possession of the said mulgis, respondents ought to have notified them before taking steps for demolition. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. While denying various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated therein that the shops in question are unauthorizedly constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan; as such, one Mr. Md. Abu Abbumia filed complaints dated 18-12-2004 and 14-02-2005 about the unauthorized structures raised by the fourth respondent in deviation of the sanctioned plan and also filed W.P.No.9924 of 2005 alleging that respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any action in pursuance of the said complaints filed by him. It is further stated that this court passed order dated 27-04-2005 directing the first respondent to consider the said complaints and pass appropriate orders and on receipt of the said order, notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act was issued and ultimately final orders were passed for removal of the said unauthorized structures. Though it is the case of the petitioners that they were put into possession of the shops in question in the capacity of tenants and were evicted without even notifying them, but, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that on the ground that the fourth respondent, the landlord of the premises in question, has made constructions in deviation of the sanctioned plan, steps were initiated by the respondents by issuing notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, pursuant to the directions of this court, and final orders were passed for removal of such unauthorized constructions. If the petitioners suffered any damage on account of removal of unauthorized structures, it is open to them to sue the fourth respondent for damages for putting them into possession of the shops in question, which are found to be made in deviation of the sanctioned plan; but, the action of the respondents in removing the unauthorized structures cannot be said to be illegal. In the circumstances, no relief as sought can be granted and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail all the remedies open under law, if they are of the view that they suffered damage on account of removal of unauthorized structures in the premises in question. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 14, 2009 MRR