HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.14125 of 2008 Date: December 22, 2009 Between: Yerra Rama Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.15-18, Asha Hospital Road, Gollapudi, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District … Petitioner And Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District, represented by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Vijayawada, and two others … Respondents Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not demolishing the property of the third respondent herein, i.e. the building in premises bearing House No. 15-16, situated at Asha Hospital Road, Gollapudi village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of a house bearing Door No.15-11 to 15-17, situated in Gollapudi village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District and the third respondent is his neighbour. It is stated that though the third respondent obtained permission for construction of a residential house, she constructed an apartment consisting of ground plus four upper floors. It is the case of the petitioner that on the complaint made by him about the unauthorized construction made by the third respondent, the second respondent issued notice dated 22-06-2006 under Section 42(1) of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 for demolition of the unauthorized construction and against the said notice the third respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which ended in dismissal. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the dismissal of the said appeal, no further steps are being taken by the second respondent to demolish the unauthorized construction made by the third respondent. 3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the third respondent stating that with regard to the alleged unauthorized construction she has already submitted an application seeking regularization/penalization as per the Rules framed under Section 455-A and Section 455-AA of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. It is further stated that an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- is paid by way of bankers cheque towards penalization amount. It is the case of the third respondent that as much as the application filed by her is pending; no case is made out for grant of relief prayed for. 4. By Act 9 of 2008, amendments are made to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. By virtue of the said amendments, Section 455-AA is inserted, which empowers the Commissioner to regularize constructions subject to certain conditions. The validity of the said provision under Section 455-AA was the subject matter of a batch of cases before this court and a Division Bench of this court in the case of K.V.H. Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another[1] upheld the same. It is the case of the third respondent that application is submitted for regularization of unauthorized construction and the same is pending consideration, but, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the scheme of regularization notified by the respondents under Section 455-AA of the Act, is subject to the conditions imposed in the building bye- laws and other Government Orders including Andhra Pradesh Fire Service Act, 1999 and the National Building Code. It is also submitted that the construction made by the third respondent is in violation of the building bye- laws and therefore it cannot be regularized. 5. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, but, it is submitted that the application filed by the third respondent for regularization of unauthorized construction is pending consideration. 6. In view of upholding of the provision under Section 455-AA of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and the rules made thereunder, by this court, and when the application filed by the third respondent for regularization of unauthorized construction is pending consideration, no directions as prayed for can be given. At the same time, when it is the case of the petitioner that the construction made by the third respondent is not in accordance with the statue and bye-laws, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondents 1 and 2 and also the Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation to issue notice to the petitioner and also hear his objections before considering the application filed by the third respondent for regularization of construction, made in deviation to the sanctioned plan and pass appropriate orders. It is made clear that no further steps shall for demolition shall be taken until the application filed by the third respondent is disposed of. 7. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 22, 2009 MRR [1] 2009 (4) ALD 803 (DB)