THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2059 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing him notice, dated 30.01.2010, in exercise of powers under Section 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.18-12-1789 to 1798 admeasuring 212 sq.yards situated at Hafeez Baba Nagar, Hyderabad. It is stated that originally, at the first instance, he has purchased 137 sq.yards of land from its original owner, Smt. Anees Sultana, and he was put in possession pursuant to the notarized agreement of sale, dated 04.02.2003. He also purchased another property admeasuring 75 sq.yards from its owner, Mohd.Khallel-Ur-Rehamn under notarized agreement of sale on the same date. It is also stated that as the said properties are adjoining sites, he made constructions on it. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has applied for regularization as per the scheme notified by the respondents-Corporation in exercise of powers under Section 455-A of the Act, his application is pending consideration and the respondents are taking steps for demolition. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner also filed a copy of the acknowledgment in token of receiving his application vide Application No.BPS/20500/W-6-3/Cir-X/C2/08 under BPS scheme. Even according to the petitioner, he has not obtained any permission for making constructions as required under the provisions of the Act. But, however, it is to be noted that when the regularization scheme notified by the respondents was subject matter of the writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court upheld that scheme and the amendments made to the Act. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation states that the application filed by the petitioner is pending consideration. He further states that as the petitioner has not acquired any valid title, he cannot seek regularization of structures in question. Whether the petitioner for the structures raised by him on the pieces of land, is entitled to claim regularization or not is a matter to be considered by the competent authority. As much as even according to the petitioner, he has not obtained any permission for construction of structures in question, I do not find any illegality in initiating proceedings for demolition by issuing the impugned notice under Section 636 of the Act. In view of the fact that the application filed by the petitioner is to be examined by the competent authority, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents not to take any step for demolition of structures in question till the application filed by the petitioner under BPS is disposed of. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is not entitled to claim regularization of the structures in question, after taking final decision, it is open for the authorities concerned to take steps in accordance with the proceedings issued. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th OCTOBER, 2010. kvni