IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8383 of 2008 Between: 1 Nanda Kishore Agarwal S/o.Ghanshyamdas Agarwal R/o.H.No.8-2-700/A, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2 Surender Kumar Agarwal S/o.Ghanshyamdas Agarwal R/o.H.No.8-2-700/A, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Town Planning Section, Circle V, Khairatabad, Hyderabad rep. by its Commissioner. .....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 declare the Notice No. 686/2/8/K/200, dated 11.4.2008 issued by the Respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without proper authority and against the principles of natural justice, by issuing appropriate writ, order or a direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MAHMOOD ALI Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to declare the notice No.686/2/8/K/2008, dated 11.04.2008 issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation/respondent as illegal, arbitrary, un-just, without proper authority and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioners are owners of the property bearing House Nos.8-2-686/7/4,3,2 & 1. They have constructed a compound wall and watchman rooms to protect the property from encroachments and misuse. The respondent issued a notice under Section 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 directing them to pull down/remove the un-authorised construction made against the provisions under Sections 428 & 433 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice. First respondent filed counter affidavit. K.V.Ranga Raju, Assistant City Planer, Circle X, Hyderabad has sworn to the counter affidavit. The second petitioner has filed reply affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the respondent Corporation has served notice under Section 461 calling for the documents and sanctioned plan against the unauthorized construction of compound wall in the premises of the petitioners. The petitioners have not responded to the said notice and thereupon, the respondent Corporation served notice under Section 452 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 on 29.02.2008. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioners have submitted explanation where they claimed ownership over the property. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners submitted an application under BPS and their application is pending consideration. The factual aspect of the petitioners filing an application claiming benefit of BPS is not controverted. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the compound wall existing on the premises bearing H.No.8-2-686/7/4,3,2 & 1 pending disposal of BPS application filed by the petitioners. Under the guise of the status quo order, the petitioners shall not put up any further constructions in the premises. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY J., Dt.11.08.2008 Note: c.c.in one week B/o Tjs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Town Planning Section, Circle V, Khairatabad, Hyderabad rep. by its Commissioner. 2. 2CCs to 3.2CD copies