HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15710 of 2003 Date : 06.08.2009 Between : J.Koteswara Rao. …..Petitioner And The Commissioner, Uppal Kalan Municipality, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. …..Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15710 of 2003 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notice, dated 10.07.2003, and the confirmation order, dated 10.03.2003, issued by the Uppal Kalan Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the provisional order, dated 10.02.2003, issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 228 (1) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. 2. Petitioner is the owner of Plot bearing No.3-14-20 of Sree Rama Apartments, Srinivasapuram Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. Based on the representation submitted by the Welfare Association of the said apartments, stating that the petitioner had made unauthorized constructions in deviation to the agreement made with them, the Commissioner of Uppal Kalan Municipality has issued a provisional notice, dated 10.02.2003, under Sections 228 (1) and (2) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, for removal of the unauthorized constructions made in stilt floor and also the gate erected in terrace. As the petitioner did not submit his explanation to the aforesaid provisional notice, the Commissioner has issued confirmation notice, dated 10.03.2003, confirming the provisional notice, dated 10.02.2003. Subsequently, the Commissioner has issued the impugned notice, dated 10.07.2003, stating that the earlier regularization orders granted for the pent house will be revoked, as the same was constructed unauthorisedly. Questioning the said notice, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri P.Venugopal, and the learned Standing Counsel Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, appearing for the respondent- Corporation. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that so far as the unauthorized constructions made by the petitioner are concerned, the same are regularized by the Government vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.419, dated 30.07.1998, by collecting the penal charges, and therefore, no action can be taken now, against such constructions. It is further stated that the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 345 of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, before the appellate authority/Municipal Council, and the appellate authority, vide its orders, dated 22.03.2003, has stayed the confirmation order pending the appeal, and therefore, the respondent-Municipality cannot take any steps to demolish the constructions made by the petitioner. 5. At the stage of admission, this Court, by an order dated 29th July 2003, stayed the operation of the impugned notice, and the said order is still in force. 6. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the leaned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Uppal Kalan Municipal area was brought under the purview of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the same is now governed by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 7. While considering the appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority has granted stay of the impugned notice, vide Proceedings, dated 22.03.2003. As much as the constructions made by the petitioner are regularized vide Poceedings in B.R.S.A.No. D/548/98-99, dated 17.07.2001, issued by the Uppal Kalan Municipality, no orders can be passed revoking such regularization. However, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent that most of the constructions made by the petitioner were already removed, and for further removal of unauthorized structures, the respondent-Corporation will follow the procedure contemplated under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, setting aside the notices, dated 10.07.2003 and 10.03.2003. However, if any unauthorized structures are still existing in the cellar and terrace, it is open to the respondent-Corporation to issue notice under the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and take further steps in accordance with law. 9. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th August 2009 usd/ajr