IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.735 OF 2010 DATED:29.3.2011 Between: G. Praveena and another … Appellants And The Commissioner Alwal Circle Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Hyderabad and others … Respondents WRIT APPEAL NO.211 OF 2011 Between: G. Praveena and another … Appellants And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Alwal Circle-16 Rep. by its Commissioner, Assistant City Planner, GHMC Secunderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.735 OF 2010 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.211 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) 1. Two writ petitions came to be filed - one against regularization of construction and the other against inaction of the respondent Corporation to deal with alleged illegal and unauthorized construction. Both the petitions were disposed by the learned single Judge by a common order. Two writ appeals have been filed and both are taken up together for disposal. To appreciate the controversy in its right perspective, the direction of the learned single Judge may be noticed: “Insofar as the application filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 under BPS is concerned, the GHMC is directed to regularize those deviations which can be regularized and communicate the deviations which cannot be regularized and see that those deviations are removed within a specified time” 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation submits that the direction of the learned single Judge has been complied with by proceedings dt.21.12.2010 partly regularizing and partly rejecting regularization of the constructions. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the regularization is in violation of the Rules governing the field. 4. In view of the limited scope of the appeal, we refrain from expression of opinion in respect of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. However, the appellants shall be at liberty to invoke appropriate remedy against the regularization before the appropriate forum, if aggrieved. Needless to say that in case remedy is invoked and a petition is filed, the authority shall dispose it of uninfluenced by the directions of the writ Court. Disposed of. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 29-3-2011 B. Narsinga Rao