THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.144 of 2008 Dated 29th June, 2011 Between: Smt.S.Bharathi …Petitioner And The Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, rep.by its Commissioner, Vijayawada and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Pramod Singh For Sri S.Sridhar Counsel for respondent No.1: Smt.G.Jhansi Counsel for respondent No.2: Smt.N.(P).Anjana Devi The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the compound wall raised by the petitioner on the southern side of house bearing No.24-14-52/A, Durgapuram, Vijayawada, without passing any orders on the explanation of the petitioner, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. During the pendency of this writ petition, respondent No.2 has been added as a party respondent at her instance on her plea that a part of the road was illegally occupied by the petitioner by constructing a compound wall and that on her complaint, notices were issued to the petitioner. A perusal of the record shows that initially a notice, dated 15.12.2004, was issued to the petitioner, which was served on her on 19.12.2007, wherein it was informed that respondent No.1 has received a complaint on the alleged occupation of the municipal road by the petitioner and therefore, she was called upon to produce the approved plans and copies of ownership documents. Once again another notice, dated 26.12.2007, was issued, which was received by the petitioner on 27.12.2007 to the same effect. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on the apprehension that respondent No.1 is likely to demolish the compound wall without taking a decision on the notices issued to her and the explanation submitted by her. In the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of respondent No.1-Corporation, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land in NTS No.40, that there is a dispute between the owners of the land in NTS No.50 and NTS No.40, that on a complaint received from the owner of the land in NTS No.50 that the public road was closed by the petitioner, respondent No.1 initiated enquiry and that as a part of the said enquiry, the impugned notices were issued. It is further stated that no decision has been taken as yet in pursuance of the notices issued and that if the Corporation wants to take action, in the event it is found that the petitioner is in occupation of the public road, it will follow due process of law. Smt.G.Jhansi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Corporation, reiterated the above noted pleas raised in the counter affidavit of respondent No.1. Smt.N.(P).Anjanan Devi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, stated that the petitioner has illegally occupied the public road blocking way to the residence of respondent No.2 and that on his complaint, the impugned notices have been issued. In the light of the fact that no order has been passed and action for demolition of the compound wall of the petitioner has been taken, I find this writ petition as wholly premature. Now that respondent No.1 has undertaken in the counter affidavit that due process of law will be followed if it is found that the petitioner has occupied the public road and raised a compound wall around it, no further adjudication of the dispute in this writ petition is needed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by placing on record the averments contained in the counter affidavit of respondent No.1. As sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 04.01.2008, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.149 of 2008 and W.V.M.P.No.2877 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th June, 2011 VGB