ORDER : 1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against order dated 09.01.2017 passed in W.P. No. 28622/2016. 2. Appellants who are petitioners in writ petition had called in question the notice dated 11.05.2016 – Annexure-F issued by third respondent whereunder petitioners were notified that building bearing No. 10-838/A situated at Lalgeri road, Brahmpur, Kalaburagi would be partially demolished and they were called upon to vacate said premises. Aggrieved by the same, writ petition was filed challenging the said notice. Learned Single Judge by order dated 09.01.2017 recorded the submission made by learned Advocate appearing for respondent-3 – Corporation whereunder it was stated that Corporation would duly notify the petitioners about encroachment of the area belonging to the Corporation and would acquire only such portion of the land which belongs to the petitioner for the purpose of widening of the road by following the provisions of Sections 270, 271 and 288 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short ‘Act’). Memo filed to the said effect by learned Advocate appearing for Corporation was placed on record and undertaking given by learned Advocate appearing for Corporation that opportunity of hearing would also be provided to petitioners to file their reply within two weeks from the date of receipt of notice also came to be recorded. A further direction was issued by the learned Single Judge that third respondent, after consideration of objections if any received within the period specified, would be at liberty to take action and not otherwise. 3. Grievance of the petitioners as vented out through their Advocate is that Corporation, in all probabilities, would reject the prayer of the petitioners and would not give sufficient breathing time to petitioners enable them to take such steps as provided under the Act and thereby prompt steps that may be taken by petitioners. Hence, he prays for a further direction to third respondent not to precipitate the matter for some reasonable period if adverse orders are passed. 4. Sri. D.P. Ambekar, learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of writ appeal. 5. Hence, he prays for a further direction to third respondent not to precipitate the matter for some reasonable period if adverse orders are passed. 4. Sri. D.P. Ambekar, learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of writ appeal. 5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of case papers, we find that under similar circumstances a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 40232/2008 and connected matters by order dated 20.10.2008 had not only directed the Corporation to consider claim of petitioners therein under Sections 270, 271 or 288 of the Act within an outer limit of three weeks and has further ordered that if the authorities were to come to a conclusion that they are required to proceed under Sections 270 or 271 or 288 of the Act, they would not implement said order for a period of two weeks. 6. In the light of said directions having already been issued by this Court, we are also of the considered view that if similar direction is issued in the instant case, no prejudice would be caused to respondent-Corporation. Hence, we further add to the order dated 09.01.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 28622/2016 that third respondent-Corporation after receiving reply or objections from petitioners and passing orders thereon, shall not take further steps for a period of two weeks in the event of any adverse orders being passed against petitioners. With these observations, writ appeal stands disposed of. In view of writ appeal having been disposed of, I.A. No. 1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and it stands rejected.