THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16677 OF 2008 5th November 2009 Between: Chadaram Sanni Babu. …PETITIONER AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), rep.by its Commissioner, MCH Complex, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and three others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16677 OF 2008 ORDER: The third respondent constructed a building known as Sai Brindavan Residency at Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. The petitioner purchased one flat in the second floor. His grievance is that the third respondent has deviated the sanctioned plan in several respects such as construction of an additional floor and cellar, and conversion of the ground floor into shops. It is alleged that though respondents 1 and 2 have noticed the deviations, no steps were taken in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987 and the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. On behalf of the first respondent, the second respondent conducted inspection of the premises and filed a report. The third respondent filed counter affidavit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner is one of the purchasers of one of the flats in the Complex. A perusal of the report submitted by the second respondent and the Assistant City Planner, Circle-9, GHMC, discloses that there are certain deviations, both in regard to the extension as well as number of floors. The deviations, that are noticed, would certainly have been proceeded against, but for the fact that the third respondent is said to have filed an application before the first respondent for regularization of the deviations, as provided for under the Building Penalization Scheme {“the Scheme” for short}. It is stated that the petitioner has also submitted an application under the Scheme. In this scenario, respondents 1 and 2 cannot be required to proceed against the deviations straight away. Ultimately, it will depend upon the outcome of the applications filed by various inmates of the Complex for regularization. The petitioner can bring to the notice of the first respondent, the deviations on the part of the third respondent and raise objections for regularization thereof. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that (a) The first respondent shall consider on the applications submitted by the petitioner, third respondent and other inmates of Sai Brindavan Residency and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two {2} months from today; and (b) Necessary steps shall be taken by respondents 1 and 2, depending upon the outcome of the applications. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 5th November 2009 RRB