HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.16163 of 2003 Between: B.Chandraiah ……….Petitioner and The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and another ………..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.16163 of 2003 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dated 21-07-2003, issued by the erstwhile Municipality of Rajendranagar in exercise of powers under Section 228 (3) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, for removal of unauthorized constructions made by the petitioner in the premises bearing door No.6-2-127/A in Sy. No.40 of Katedan village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of 80 square yards of land in Sy. No.40, situated at Katedan village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He claims title over the said property by virtue of Regularization Deed, dated 23-05-2002, executed by the State of Andhara Pradesh through the District Revenue Officer, Ranga Reddy District. In the said piece of land, the petitioner made some constructions and thereafter, applied for approval of building construction plan vide his application dated 19-07-2003. The said application was rejected by the impugned proceedings dated 21-07- 2003 stating that constructions are in violation of the setbacks on all sides and also an encroachment of 3 feet road on eastern side of the plot, which is abutting 250 feet wide road of National Highway No.7. It is also alleged that an extent of the plot claimed by the petitioner is 80 square yards, whereas the construction is taking place in 94.11 square yards. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that as much as the constructions are made in an extent of 80 square yards of land, which is within the extent of 100 square meters of land and 10 meters height, no prior permission is necessary from the authorities concerned, in view of orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.423, dated 31-07-1998. Hence, there is no violation committed by the petitioner. 4. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of amendments to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the petitioner has already submitted an application for regularization by paying the necessary fee on 30-04-2008, and his application is also pending consideration. He has also produced a copy of the said application which bears the endorsement of the respondent’s office in token of the receipt of the same on 30-04-2008. 5. Though the writ petition is of the year 2003, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents-Corporation. However, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation that such constructions are in violation of the Rules and by encroaching into the road margins, the petitioner cannot claim protection under G.O.Ms.No.423, dated 31-07-1998. 6. Although there are orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.423, dated 31-07-1998, as per which, no prior sanction of building applications is necessary for construction of individual residential buildings in plots up to 100 square meters, but the same is subject to certain conditions and restrictions regulated thereunder. The very G.O. also states that the constructions shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan/Z.D.P., Zoning Regulations and Building Bye- laws/Rules. 7. Admittedly, even according to the petitioner, the area which is regularized is only 80 square yards and it is stated in the impugned order that the constructions have come up in an extent of 94.11 square yards. Further it is also alleged that the petitioner has violated the setbacks on all sides and made constructions. In view of the said violations as recorded by the respondents in the impugned proceedings, the petitioner cannot seek protection on the ground that no prior permission is necessary for constructions made by him. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impunged order passed by the respondents-Corporation. 8. However, in view of the developments pursuant to the amendments made by the Greater Hyderabad Municipallity, Hyderabad, the petitioner has submitted application on 30-04-2008 for regularization of structures by paying necessary fee, and in view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to get regularization of structures and it is for the respondents to consider the same. 9. As much as it is stated that the application filed by the petitioner is still pending consideration, I direct the respondents-Corporation not to take any steps for demolition of any part of the building of the petitioner bearing No.6-2-127/A, situated at Katedan village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, till appropriate orders are passed on the application of the petitioner, dated 30-04-2008 and the office of the respondents- Corporation shall communicate the same to the petitioner. It is also made clear that if the application of the petitioner is rejected, it is open for the respondents-Corporation to remove the structures, which were constructed by the petitioner contrary to the Bye-laws and Rules made thereunder. 10. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 3rd August 2009 KVR