IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 897 of 2007 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/06/2007 in WP NO : 14305 OF 1997 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 M/s. Balaji Jewellary rep. by Partners, Partnership firm:5-8-554 & 555, Abid road, Hyderabad rep.by its partner Sri Brij Mohan 2 Brij mohan S/o late Nanuram, Partnership Firm: 5-8-554 & 555, Abid road, Hyderabad 3 Rajesh kumar S/o Brij Mohan, Partnership Firm: 5-8-554 & 555, Abid road, Hyderabad 4 Manish Kumar S/o Brij Mohan, Partnership Firm: 5-8-554 & 555, Abid road, Hyderabad ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad rep. by Special Officer & Commissioner. 2 Vijay Kapoor S/o N.R.Kapoor, R/o 2-2-185/56/6A, Soma Sunder Nagar, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad 3 Smt. Sanjana kapoor W/o Vijay kapoor, R/o 2-2-185/56/6A, Soma Sunder Nagar, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad 4 Gulshan Chatwal S/o Vasudev Chatwal, R/o 5-4-642, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : MR.G.PEDDA BABU The Court made the following : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 897 of 2007 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Anil R.Dave) Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.14305 of 1997, dated 19th June 2007 has been challenged in this appeal. Unauthorised construction put up by respondents 2 to 4 had been regularised by respondent No.1 and being aggrieved by the said regularisation, writ petition No.14305 of 1997 had been filed by the present appellants. After hearing the concerned Advocates and considering several Government Orders issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the impugned order of regularisation was just and proper, and, therefore, the petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. We have heard the learned Advocates and have considered the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge and G.O.Ms.No.243, MA & UD, dated 22nd May 1996, G.O.Rt.No.712, MA, dated 17th June 1995 and G.O.Ms.No.419, MA, dated 30th July 1998. The afore- stated Government Orders incorporate provisions with regard to regularisation of unauthorized constructions. By virtue of the impugned order dated 20th June 1997, respondent No.1 had regularised certain unauthorized construction which was beyond the cut-off date of 30th March 1996. Upon considering all relevant Government Orders, we find that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.419, dated 30th July 1998, the cut-off date had been extended to 30th June 1998. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly stated that the construction which was unauthorised, could have been otherwise also legally regularised by virtue of the aforesaid Government Orders, which have been validated by virtue of A.P.Regularisation of the Unauthorised Constructions in Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2003 (Act 6 of 2003 (for short ‘the Act’), and in the writ petition, there was no challenge either to the validity of G.O.Ms.No.419, dated 30th July 1998 or the Act. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 1st April 2008 ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr To: The Special Officer & Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.