7 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as the municipality cannot, in view of section 228 of the Act, demolish even the unauthorized structures without issuing notice, and as there is nothing on record to show that any notice directing demolition of the structure constructed by the petitioner was given, petitioner may be granted the relief sought, and relied on Machilipatnam Municipality rep., by its Commissioner Vs. Inampudi Lakshmikanthamma and anothe r[1] and Lakshmi Construction, Hyderabad Vs. Government of A.P[2] in support of his said contention. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, in which the Serilingampally Municipality was merged in the recent past, is that at the request of the 2nd respondent for assistance in demolition of unauthorized constructions, 1st respondent extended his cooperation to the 2nd respondent, and so petitioner is not entitled to any relief against the 1st respondent. Counsel for 3rd respondent stated that 3rd respondent at the instance of the 2nd respondent in her official capacity extended her cooperation to the 2nd respondent in demolishing the unauthorized structures and so 3rd respondent cannot be made liable in her individual capacity. There is no representation on behalf of respondents 2 and 4. 8 The specific case of the petitioner is that no notice whatsoever was given to him before the respondents thought it fit to demolish the structures raised by him. Though as per Section 2 (3) of the Act compound wall, not exceeding two meters in height, is not a ‘building’ within the meaning of the Act, as the height of the compound wall constructed by the petitioner is not known, and as it is not even the case of respondents 1 and 3 who filed their counter affidavits that notice as contemplated by the Act was given to the petitioner before demolishing
