IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16276 of 2007 Between: Abdul Rasheed S/o. Late Lal Mohammed R/o.H.No. 5-3-292, Mominpura, Koratla Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND Koratla Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner Koratla Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar 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 may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of Respondent authority in interfering and threatening to demolish the peaceful construction of a boundary wall/compound wall which is not exceeding 2 metres constructing in the petitioner's land in Sy.No. 299/ admeasuring 680 sq. yards situated at Koratla Village and Mandal as arbitrary illegal, null and void and also violative of Articles 14,19 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful construction of the boundary wall/compound wall which is being constructed by the petitioner in his land in Sy.No. 299/ admeasuring 680 sq. yards situated at Koratla proper and mandal, Karimnagar District except due process of Law and to pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent.: MR.RADHA KRISHNA POLISETTY (SC FOR MPL) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed by Abdul Rasheed with a prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Koratla Municipality rep. by its Commissioner-respondent in interfering and threatening to demolish the construction of a boundary wall/compound wall, which does not exceed two metres, is arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner claims to have purchased 680 sq. yards in Survey No.299/’AA’, situated at Koratla town under a registered sale deed dated 27.04.2007. With an intention to construct a boundary wall/compound wall, he dumped stones and sand. The construction of the proposed compound wall is not exceeding two metres height. The petitioner made an application to the respondent-Municipality 24.05.2007 by way of abundant caution to avoid unnecessary consequences. His application has not been attended to by the respondent-Municipality and therefore, he approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 31.07.2007. While ordering notice before admission, an interim order came to be passed and it reads as hereunder: “Pending further orders, respondents are directed not to take steps for demolition and they shall maintain status quo as on today. At the same time, petitioner shall also not make any further constructions.” The respondent received notice and entered appearance through its Standing Counsel. The respondent-Municipality filed counter-affidavit stating that two persons submitted applications in respect of the self same property, and therefore, both the applications have been rejected. For better appreciation, paras.3 to 6 of the counter-affidavit need to be extracted and they are thus: “3. It is respectfully submitted that in reply to para.2 of the affidavit, I submit that the Municipality received an application for construction of the house in the same plot i.e., Sy.No.299/A by Sri Sriripuram Ganesh on 7.6.2007 vide registered document No.843/06, dt.13.3.2006 where petitioner requested for the grant of permission for the construction of the compound wall. These both documents showing property rights on the same plot in same Sy.No.299/A hence it is a civil dispute and arise question about the ownership rights of the petitioner on the site as well as the other person. 4. It is respectfully submitted that in reply to para.3 of the affidavit, I submit that the petitioner has applied for permission for construction of the compound wall with mala fide intention to create a document from the Municipality where the permission compound wall is not necessary from the Municipality. 5. It is respectfully submitted that in reply to paras.4 to 13 of the affidavit, I submit that it is not correct that the application was pending with the Municipality but the Municipality made enquiry with the both documents and rejected the applications and intimated the both petitioners about the land dispute and also suggested to approach the court of law for the ownership rights on the property. 6. It is respectfully submitted that about the demolition of the compound wall, where the permission is not required for the construction of the compound wall upto 2 Mt. Height the question of the demolition does not arise. As on today there is no compound wall in the site in question. The petitioner wants to construct a compound wall under the guise of the status quo orders of this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner is constructing the compound wall contrary to the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court during night times.” 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipality. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the compound wall proposed to be constructed by the petitioner around his plot is less than two metres height and therefore, no permission is required, and however, by way of abundant caution, he made an application on 24.05.2007 to the respondent-Municipality seeking permission. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Municipality submits that the application filed by the petitioner and the application filed by another person for the self same property were considered and rejected. 7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection order was not communicated to the petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter, the respondent-Municipality is directed to furnish the copy of the rejection order to the petitioner. On receipt of such order, the petitioner is at liberty either to challenge the rejection order or to confine the construction of the compound wall within the permissible limits. 9. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:18th July, 2008. Note: Issue C.C. within three days. B/O cs .....ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CCs 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}