THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.18609 of 2006 DATED: 14.07.2010 Between: K. Venkateshwara Rao .. Petitioner And The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents ORDER: It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of his repeated representations, complaining about the illegal constructions made by the 2nd respondent, in deviation of the sanctioned plan, in plot bearing No.18 situated at Methodist Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad, respondent No.1- Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is not taking any action in the matter. Petitioner also disputes the ownership of the 2nd respondent over the plot in question. The Assistant City Planner of the respondent Corporation fled a detailed counter-affidavit, stating that, based upon the documents produced by the 2nd respondent, his application for building permission for construction of ground and two upper floors in the plot in question, has been granted. However, the 2nd respondent, in the guise of some interim injunction orders granted by the Civil Court, constructed apartment consisting stilt and five upper floors, in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Upon noticing the illegal constructions, necessary action was initiated and construction material was seized. However, subsequent thereto, some of the owners, who purchased flats in the said building, have applied for penalization of the illegal constructions and their applications are pending. It is stated that in view of the orders of this Court no to take any coercive steps pending consideration of BPS applications, no further action could be initiated and after disposal of those BPS applications, the respondent will initiate further action. Having regard to the stand taken by the respondent Corporation that BPS applications filed by the owners of the flats in the building in question are pending and further action will be taken pursuant to their disposal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent agreed to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “Respondent No.1- Corporation is directed to take into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner in his representation, while considering the BPS applications filed by the flat owners for regularization of the illegal constructions in the building constructed by the 2nd respondent. If any of the illegal constructions are found not to be regularized, the respondent Corporation shall, within a timeframe of three months, remove those illegal constructions as per law.” The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 14th July, 2010 IBL