ORDER : (Anil Kumar Jukanti, J.) : This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief : “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly that of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 authorities in conducting actions of demolition by itself without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and ultra vires various enactments and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to conduct any actions with respect of the Petitioner’s land admeasuring 12,114.408 sq. yds in Sy.No.153/part Ameenpur Village, Sangareddy District and pass such other order or orders...” 2. Heard Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. K.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Monitoring and Protection Hyderabad, (HYDRAA) for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.4, 6 and 8, Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) for respondent No.9. 3. Brief facts: Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 12,114.408 sq. yards in Sy.No.153/part in Ameenpur Village, Sanga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as “subject property”). The subject property was purchased vide sale deed bearing No.22631 of 2022, dated 16.05.2022, from Munoth Private Trust and subsequent release deed, dated 29.06.2024. Petitioner, having obtained necessary approvals and clearance from competent authorities, converted the subject property to residential zone for development purposes. Building permission was granted by HMDA (respondent No.9) on 29.09.2023 for construction of apartment complex, after mortgaging substantial portion of the subject property. 3.1 It is further the case of petitioner that two of the plot owners in the abutting layout filed O.S.No.367 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy District, seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioner for interfering with the possession of plots belonging to them. Members of abutting layout i.e., Venkataramana Colony Welfare Association, filed W.P.No.2804 of 2024 and the said writ petition is pending for adjudication. 3.2 Grievance of petitioner is that respondent authorities visited the subject property of petitioner on 14.09.2024 and entered into the premises alleging that subject property is falling under Sy.No.152 and that petitioner is making constructions in the said survey number by encroaching into land (i.e., park area). 3.2 Grievance of petitioner is that respondent authorities visited the subject property of petitioner on 14.09.2024 and entered into the premises alleging that subject property is falling under Sy.No.152 and that petitioner is making constructions in the said survey number by encroaching into land (i.e., park area). It is further averred that on 25.09.2024, authorities of respondent Nos.1 and 2 visited the subject property and threatened that they would demolish the project on the basis of complaints made by some third parties. 3.4 It is the case of petitioner that respondent Nos.1 and 2, on the basis of complaints, are interfering with the subject property and threatening to demolish the constructions, which are ongoing, after obtaining due permission(s) from the respective authorities. The action of respondent Nos.1 and 2, along with other official respondents, is in contravention of the law and in violation of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is the absolute owner of land admeasuring 12,114.408 sq. yards in Sy.No.153/part of Ameenpur Village, Sangareddy Distrtict. Petitioner, having purchased the subject property vide sale deed, dated 16.05.2022, and having obtained permission from the authorities, is constructing residential flats in the subject property. It is further submitted that officials of respondent Nos.1 and 2, having received the complaints from third parties, have visited the subject property on 14.09.2024 and 25.09.2024 and threatened to demolish the construction activities being undertaken by petitioner on the ground that petitioner is constructing by encroaching into the area of park land, without there being any verification or demarcation of land, which respondent authorities claim to be encroached. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Venkataramana Colony Welfare Association, after seeking leave of this Court, submitted that two of its plot owners have brought to the notice of respondent Nos.1 and 2 authorities that petitioner was making constructions in park area and that some disputes are pending between the interested parties in Sy.Nos.152 and 153 claiming to be title holders in the said land of Sy.Nos.152 and 153. 5.1 This Court is not inclined to go into the aspect of title dispute with respect to any of the properties, whether it be Sy.Nos.152 or 153. 5.1 This Court is not inclined to go into the aspect of title dispute with respect to any of the properties, whether it be Sy.Nos.152 or 153. This Court is confining itself only to the issue of encroachment of park area in Sy.No.153, which is to be guarded by the concerned authority(s) by way of demarcation. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for HYDRAA appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that plot owners of Venkataramana Colony Welfare Association have made complaint on 06.07.2024 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 that petitioner is making constructions in an area which is earmarked for park and that it is the duty of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to protect such park area. It is further submitted that it is only on receipt of complaint from plot owners of Venkataramana Colony Welfare Association on 06.07.2024, officials of respondent Nos.1 and 2 have visited the subject property on 14.09.2024 and 25.09.2024 only for the purpose of ascertaining the factual aspect in the complaint. It is fairly submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are empowered only to protect public assets, of which, public park is one such asset. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.4, 6 and 8 (revenue authorities) submitted that office of Tahsildar is willing to conduct a joint survey by issuing notice to all the stakeholders and that as on date i.e., today, Revenue Inspector of the concerned office of Tahsildar was present at the site at 10:30 a.m. for identifying the park area in Sy.Nos.152 and 153. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing on behalf of respondent No.9 has placed on record letter, dated 13.09.2024, which appears to be a communication between Commissioner, HYDRAA and Commissioner, HMDA, bringing it to the notice of the Commissioner, HMDA that certain complaints were received with regard to encroachment. It is further submitted that HMDA in coordination with other official respondents is ready and willing to be a part of the Joint Survey. 9. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 10. Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of land admeasuring 12,114.408 sq. yards in Sy.No.153/part of Ameenpur Village, Sangareddy District. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Venkataramana Colony Welfare Association contended that the dispute is only with regard to park area and such area has to be earmarked after conducting a joint survey. 10. Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of land admeasuring 12,114.408 sq. yards in Sy.No.153/part of Ameenpur Village, Sangareddy District. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Venkataramana Colony Welfare Association contended that the dispute is only with regard to park area and such area has to be earmarked after conducting a joint survey. All the counsels appearing in the matter expressed their willingness on behalf of their parties for such a joint survey to be conducted. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors., W.P(Civil).No.295 of 2022, dated 17.09.2024 clarified as follows: “Till the next date of hearing, we direct that there shall be no demolition anywhere across the country without seeking leave of this Court. We further clarify that out order would not be applicable if there an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law.” In the light of the clarification of the Supreme Court, this Court is bound to follow the same. 12. Having given a thoughtful consideration, this Court deems it appropriate that notices be issued in advance to all the stakeholders by concerned revenue officials and after issuing notices, shall conduct the joint survey for identifying and demarcating the park area be it in Sy.No.152 or 153. Such act of identification and demarcation of park area shall be carried out, after considering the layouts, documents or any other concerned record(s) placed before them. Revenue officials, along with representatives of other official respondents, shall conduct a joint survey in the presence of all stakeholders and demarcate the park area by considering the layouts, documents and the record(s) submitted by all stakeholders. A report shall be placed before the District Collector, who shall communicate the same to the concerned authorities, to protect the park area, after demarcation. Assistant Director, Survey and Settlements, shall assist the revenue officials in conduct of survey and demarcation by providing necessary staff. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Assistant Director, Survey and Settlements, shall assist the revenue officials in conduct of survey and demarcation by providing necessary staff. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. It is made clear that if any of the stakeholders are not present on the day of demarcation, they shall forfeit their right to raise any further legal proceedings. In the meantime, respondent authorities shall not take any coercive steps in respect of the subject property. It is made clear that if any further constructions are made by petitioner, petitioner shall run the risk of making such construction at its own peril. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.