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 : 9539 of 2008 Between: Somaju Brahmaji, S/o. late Varahalu, R/o. D.No.57-4-36, Durganagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s property bearing D.No.57-4-36 in an extent 180 Sq.Yds, covered by Patta No.16 in S.No.30 situate at Durga Nagar, Kancharapalem visakhapatnam and demolishing the part of the construction as illegal, arbitrary ad in violation of provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, without notice and offending Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's property bearing D.No.57-4-36 in an extent 180 Sq.yds covered by Patta No.16 in S.No.30 situate at Durga nagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam except under due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent:MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed by this petitioner apprehending highhanded demolition of his compound wall by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation-respondent. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent- Corporation is contemplating to demolish the compound wall of the petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation on instructions reports that any demolition of the compound wall constructed by the petitioner will be taken up in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules framed there under. 4. Such is the representation of the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, the cause in the writ petition does not survive. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:11th June, 2008. cs .....ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}