THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.31350 of 2010 Dated 08th September, 2011 Between: Md.Hadi Ali Khan …Petitioner And The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Mir Masood Khan Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri K.Jamali 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 inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in removing the wall unauthorisedly raised by respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Mir Masood Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Jamali, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner and respondent No.3 are neighbours. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 has encroached into the his property, demolished the west side of his compound wall on 20.08.2008 and started raising construction without leaving set-backs. It is his further plea that respondent No.3 has started raising compound wall by encroaching into his property. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3, he has admitted that he is the neighbour of the petitioner, but he has denied his encroaching into the petitioner’s property. Respondent No.3 further admitted that when he was constructing the compound wall by raising the pillar to support the same, the petitioner gave a complaint to respondent No.1, which thereupon issued notice under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and also a notice under Section 636 of the Act. He has further stated that thereafter respondent Nos.1 and 2 have demolished the compound wall. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though respondent No.3 has pleaded that the compound wall raised by him has been demolished, a part of the compound wall is still in existence. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that no part of the compound wall raised by his client is existing as on today and that the dispute raised by the petitioner, namely, that his client has encroached into the former’s property, is amenable for adjudication by the competent civil Court. In my opinion, respondent No.3 is not entitled to raise any construction, including compound wall, without the permission of respondent Nos.1 and 2. In this writ petition, this Court is concerned with the illegal structure raised by respondent No.3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.3, if the petitioner has any grievance against respondent No.3 for the alleged encroachment, he shall be free to approach the competent civil Court. As there is a serious dispute as to the existence of compound wall unauthorisedly constructed by respondent No.3, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to ensure that if any part of the compound wall raised by respondent No.3 is still in existence, the same is removed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order, however, shall not be understood as this Court accepting the plea of the petitioner that respondent No.3 raised the compound wall by encroaching into the former’s property. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.39888 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th September, 2011 VGB