IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.33914 OF 2011 Between : K.Hemalatha ... PETITIONER A N D The State of A.P., and another. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.33914 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in its order vide Letter No.3777/2011/G1, dated 12.12.2011, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to issue permission on the application of the petitioner, dated 27.05.2008 under B.P.S. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner is the owner of the house bearing Door No.19-9-29/2B, Tiruchanoor Road, Lakshmipuram, Tirupati. The petitioner wanted to convert the said temporary house structure into a permanent building. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a permanent structure in the said site and submitted an application to the respondents for approval under Building penalization scheme. The respondents received the application along with fee and accordingly issued door number to the petitioner’s house. Thereafter, the respondents gave water connection, drainage connection and power connection to the said building. The petitioner’s application, dated 27.05.2008, for approval of the building under Building Penalization Scheme has not been considered by the respondents. In December, 2010, the then Commissioner of Tirupati Municipal Corporation conducted a mela for regularization of building under BPS. In that connection the Commissioner suggested the petitioner to gift a portion of her land (7” length x 26’ width) for approved 100 feet widening of the road which is situated at eastern and promised to accord permission for construction of first and second floors without any fees in lieu of compensation. Accordingly, the petitioner executed a Gift Deed, dated 13.01.2011 in favour of the respondent Corporation. While the matter stood thus, the respondent authorities passed an order, dated 12.12.2011 and served on the petitioner on 19.12.2011 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner filed an application, dated 27.05.2008 before respondent No.2- Corporation to consider her case under building penalization scheme; that the application of the petitioner was rejected on 12.12.2011 stating that she encroached an extent of 14 feet; that as per the survey report, the encroachment is ‘7’ feet only but not 14’ feet as contended by respondents and hence, he prays to issue a direction to the respondents not to demolish the building of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner gifted some extent of land to a width of 100 feet for the purpose of road widening and later after gifting the said property, the petitioner encroached the land earmarked for 100 feet road and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner gifted some extent of land to the respondent Corporation for the purpose of road widening. As per the Master Plan, the width of the road in front of the house of the petitioner is about 100 feet. According to the impugned proceedings, the petitioner is said to have encroached into the road to an extent of 14 feet but, whereas according to the petitioner, she is said to have encroached to an extent of 7 feet. Therefore, all these aspects have to be decided by respondent No.2- Corporation in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to remove such of the constructions made by the petitioner come under 100 feet of land and shall not remove the construction made by the petitioner, if there is no encroachment on to the 100 feet road. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J DECEMBER 26, 2011. YVL