THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 31552 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted questioning the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioner with regard to the premises bearing No. 2-22-263/1/2 situated at Chayamina Enclave, A.S.Raju Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad as illegal. On 6.12.20110, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has passed orders under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act pointing out that the petitioner has converted the parking space in his premises to other purposes in contravention of Regulation 11 of Zoning Regulations, 1981 as well as the provisions contained under Section 428 and 433 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to show-cause as to why the petitioner’s premises be not dealt with in accordance with law. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an `Affidavit of Undertaking’ of the petitioner in the above matter. He has pointed out that he has given the premises under lease to one Sri Pradeep Kumar for running a business and the petitioner has undertaken to vacate the said shop within a period of one year from today. Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Dr.Y.Padmavathi would point out that pursuant to orders passed by this court, the respondent corporation is now going about securing the parking spaces rid off unauthorized constructions carried out in Kukatpally area as due to lack of adequate parking spaces, the premises users are parking motor vehicles all around the places, thus causing repeated bottlenecks in traffic clearing. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has no manner of right or justification for converting the parking lot for any other purposes including for operating commercial shops there. In view of the Undertaking furnished by the petitioner that he would be getting the tenant evicted, however, I consider that it would be appropriate to grant time to the petitioner up to 31.10.2011 for securing the vacation of the shop room and also for clearing the parking space in the premises concerned to be utilized exclusively for the said purpose of parking only. I think granting two months time would be reasonable when viewed from the perspective that the writ petition is coming up from 15th December 2010 onwards. Dr.Y.Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel would submit that in all other cases, this court has granted time for vacation of the unauthorisedly occupied premises and thereafter because of the undertakings of the petitioners to vacate the premises in question in quick time, only up to 30.9.2011, and no further indulgence is required to be shown towards the writ petitioner herein. In the rest of the cases, I am conscious that time has been granted upto 30.9.2011 for getting the tenants vacated, from, the premises in question, and to clear all the partitions and other constructions made in parking area so that the parking facility is restored forthwith. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed undertaking seeking for 12 months time. In the peculiar facts prevailing in this case, I therefore consider it appropriate to grant time up to 31.10.2011 for the petitioner. I hope and trust that the petitioner will get the premises in question vacated by his tenants and order would be restored with regard to the parking lot so that the orders passed earlier in a batch of cases by this court can be given effect to by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation by demolishing all such unauthorized structures raised in parking places, if they are not voluntarily removed by the petitioners themselves. Following the said dictum, I grant two months time to voluntarily vacate the objectionable portions of the premises occupied by them and further if the petitioner fails to get his premises vacated and clear all those hurdles for parking of vehicles by those who visit the said complex and also utilize the space provided there for parking, it is open to the respondents to take such measures as are necessary for removing the same, if the petitioner fails to adhere to the terms already furnished by him to the extent, it is modified by this court. The Undertaking of the petitioner filed into the court today is taken on record. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 5th September 2011