JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 being brother and sisters have inter se dispute on the land, the subject of the gift deed executed by their father in their favour on 13th December, 1979. 2. It appears that the petitioner wanted to have the entire land in his possession, in the process filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application for grant of temporary injunction before the court of Municipal Magistrate, 1st Class, Srinagar in the year 2000. Application for grant of injunction has been dismissed vide order dated 26-06-2000. 3. Now what has happened is that in the month of February 2016, the petitioner had allegedly erected a tin fencing wall, noticing the same, a complaint has been filed before the Ward Officer who immediately according to his communication dated 10th February 2016, visited the spot along with field staff and observed that the offender (petitioner) had erected a tin fencing partition wall on the disputed land. He has further mentioned therein that he tried to remove the said fencing, but could not do so due to resentment by the violator and his relatives. In the same communication, he has requested the Chief Enforcement Officer, Srinagar to provide demolition squad with sufficient police assistance for removal of the said tin fencing. 4. The Chief Enforcement Officer, Srinagar Municipal Corporation vide Communication dated 22-02-2016 requested Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar to provide police assistance for demolition of illegal construction raised by Masrat Hussain Rather (petitioner). Noticing this development, petitioner has filed the instant petition projected therein that the respondents are not adhering to the applicable provisions of the law they have straightaway initiated action for demolition of the construction. 5. The interim direction was granted providing for maintaining the status quo on spot as is clear from the order dated 4th March 2016. 6. Noticing this development, petitioner has filed the instant petition projected therein that the respondents are not adhering to the applicable provisions of the law they have straightaway initiated action for demolition of the construction. 5. The interim direction was granted providing for maintaining the status quo on spot as is clear from the order dated 4th March 2016. 6. During the pendency of this petition, the respondent No. 7 i.e., sister of the petitioner has filed the suit for permanent injunction before the court of Learned City Munsiff, Srinagar who after considering the application for grant of injunction has granted interim relief vide order dated 12th April 2016, wherein it is provided that till the objections are filed by the other side and the same are considered, non-applicant should not change the nature of the suit property by raising any sort of construction over the same or by creating any third party interest with respect to suit property. The said order is subject to variation or discharge. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case respondent authority wants to demolish the construction which in their opinion is illegal construction, then they are required to have recourse to proper procedure and provisions of law. In opposition, learned counsel for the respondents No. 6 and 7 would submit that if this communication is treated as notice for demolition, then the petitioner has efficacious remedy available by approaching the appellate police authority, filing of this petition appears to have motive i.e., to scuttle the entire proceedings. 8. In the instant case, though municipal authorities have swung into action, but only after the tin fencing had been raised. The petitioner with the aid of his relatives had not allowed the removal of that illegal construction for which there was no requirement of serving any notice. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the erection of tin fencing is not a violation nor it falls within the ambit of illegal construction. But Section 4 of Building Operations Control Act (BOCA) is clear as to what illegal construction means. 10. Be that as it may, now the position has undergone change, respondent No. 7 has filed the suit. But Section 4 of Building Operations Control Act (BOCA) is clear as to what illegal construction means. 10. Be that as it may, now the position has undergone change, respondent No. 7 has filed the suit. The order of injunction has been granted, it is for the parties to approach the same court either for implementation or for modification of the order, in addition thereto the respondent Municipal Authority are also bound to abide the order as shall be passed by the court of City Munsiff, Srinagar. 11. The communication addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar as impugned in this petition shall also abide by further orders from the court of City Munsiff, Srinagar. The communication to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar is not a notice for demolition, but seeks assistance for demolition. Municipal Authority shall adhere to the provisions of the building operations and other enabling provisions and shall also abide by the orders as shall be passed by the court of City Munsiff, Srinagar. 12. Interim direction dated 04th March 2016, shall cease to be in operation. 13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.