IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21895 of 2001 Between : 1 Mohd. Khurshid Ali, S/o. M.A.Waheed, R/o. Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., (Rep. by his G.P.A. holder, Muktar Ali, S/o. M.A.Waheed, aged 55 years, Occupation: Agriclture, R/o. H.No.2-1-22, Near Electricity Sub-Station, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Mukthar Ali, S/o. M.A. Waheed, R/o. H.No.2-1-22, Near Electricity Sub-Station, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Commissioner, Municipality, Tandur, at Tandur, Ranga Reddy 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 issued an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent interfering with the construction of boundary wall around sy.No.6 and 7 measuring Ac.20-25 gts., as shown in the Map situated at Saipur (Village), Tandur (Mandal), Ranga Reddy (District), with out disposing of the petitioners Application dated 19-1-2001, for grant of permission within the statutory period, as arbitrary illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently restraining the respondent herein from interfering with the construction of boundary wall around the said lands. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.N.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the action of respondent in interfering with the construction of boundary wall around their land bearing Survey Numbers 6 and 7, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that though permission is not required for construction of a boundary wall, under bonafide impression, the petitioners have made an application seeking permission. He submitted that asmuch as the construction is limited to boundary wall, it does not fall under the definition of ‘building’ as defined under Section 2 (3) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, and as such, no permission is required for such construction. Even the learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly concedes that for a boundary wall less than two metres of height, no permission is contemplated under the provisions of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, the construction is already completed and no further constructions are taken up. 3. Asmuch as it is submitted that the construction in question is only a boundary wall less than two metres of height, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent/Commissioner not to interfere with the said construction. 4. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th June 2009 ajr