THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22644 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the inaction on the part of the first respondent in taking steps for removal of unauthorized constructions alleged to have been made by respondents 2 and 3 in the open terrace above the third/fourth floor of Janardhan Apartments bearing House No.3-6-366/A situated at Liberty X Road, Beside TTD Kalyana Mandapam, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. Petitioners, 8 in number, claim to be the owners of residential flats in the above said apartment complex. It is their grievance that without any permission, constructions were made on the terrace portion by respondents 2 and 3 and in spite of it, no steps are being taken for removal of such unauthorized constructions by the first respondent – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Status report is filed by the Assistant City Planner, Circle No.3, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, while denying various allegations levelled by the petitioners, it is stated that respondents 2 and 3 submitted applications for regularization of unauthorized constructions in terms of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.901, Municipal Administration, dated 31.12.2007, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.112, Municipal Administration, dated 31.01.2008, and after scrutiny, the first respondent issued proceedings bearing No.444/BPS/ C-9/CZ/2008, dated 29.07.2009, regularising the constructions on the fifth floor. When such counter-affidavit is filed, on 12.07.2010, the matter was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners. But, there is no rebuttal affidavit filed by the petitioners disputing such regularization. Although the petitioners are claiming removal of unauthorized constructions, in view of proceedings, dated 29.07.2009, issued by the first respondent regularizing such constructions, as referred to above, no direction can be issued to the first respondent for removal of such constructions. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no authority or jurisdiction on the first respondent to regularize such constructions, validity of proceedings, dated 29.07.2009, issued by him cannot be gone into in this writ petition as the said proceedings are not under challenge in it. In view of the same, if the petitioners are aggrieved by such regularization proceedings, it is always open to them to question the same. It is to be noticed that the aforesaid orders were issued by the Government for regularization of unauthorized constructions under Section 455-A, which provision was inserted into Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 by way of amendment, which was also subject matter of the Writ Petitions before the Division Bench of this Court, which in turn, upheld the same. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition for grant of relief to the petitioners as prayed for. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th OCTOBER, 2010. kvni