IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11902 of 2008 Between: Neelam Ravinder, S/o. Babiah, R/o. 1-47, Kothaguda(V), Serilingampally(M), R.R.District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 2 Dy.Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Serilingampally, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in trying to demolish the compound wall at premises bearing D.No.1-47/1, situated at Kothaguda(v), under the limits of GHMC, Serilingampally Circle-I, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and consequently direct the respondents herein not to interfere with construction activity in the said premises. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA Counsel for the Respondents: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5) KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11902 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Neelam Ravinder apprehending highhanded action of the respondents by demolishing the compound wall constructed by him. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the premises bearing door No.1-47/1 situated at Kothaguda Village under the limits of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Serilingampally Circle-I, Hyderabad. He claims to have constructed a compound wall and apprehends demolition of the same by the respondents without following the due procedure established under the law. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner constructed the compound wall without obtaining any permission and the same is required to be demolished in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for brevity) and the Rules framed there under. I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents to follow the due procedure contemplated under the Act and the Rules framed there under in the event of compound wall required to be demolished. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. _______________________ (B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 11th June 2008 Note: CC in three days B/O RRB