HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.23598 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner’s building in accordance with the Building Penalization Scheme (for short ‘BPS’) in spite of receiving the application and rejoinder as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to process the application, dated 15.07.2008, by receiving the Demand Draft, dated 31.12.2010, and issue regularized buildings plans. 2. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the Writ Petition may be as follows: - The petitioner is owner of the house bearing No.295/MIG-I (MCH No.15-24-295), Kukatpally, APHB Colony, Ranga Reddy District. He has made an application to the respondents under the BPS for regularization of his building. It is also averred that the petitioner submitted a rejoinder in the Month of May, 2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that his application was neither accepted nor rejected by the respondents and that though he volunteered to pay the penal charges by way of demand draft, the respondents are not receiving the same. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit inter alia stating that though the petitioner submitted the application under the BPS, he failed to submit the existing building plan, as intimated by it under notice, dated 13.05.2009. The petitioner also failed to pay the balance amount as on 31.12.2010, which is the last date for receiving the balance penal charges, and on contra, he alleged that the officials of the respondent-Corporation refused to accept the same. As the petitioner started construction of new building by dismantling the existing structures, respondent No.2 issued a notice, dated 07.04.2011, under Section 461 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') and removed the centering of the first floor departmentally on 29.04.2011. Later, the petitioner completed the construction work of cellar + ground + 4 upper floors without prior permission from the respondents-Corporation as required under Sections 428 and 433 of the Act. It is further averred that BPS is applicable to the constructions which have been made after 01.01.1985 and before 15.12.2007. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in spite of submitting the application and the requisite documents to the respondent-Corporation, in addition to paying the required fee by way of Demand draft, the officials of respondents-Corporation have not considered the case of the petitioner under the BPS and therefore, he prays to give directions to the respondents as prayed for in this Writ Petition. Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, representing the respondents, opposed the same on the ground that BPS is applicable only to the constructions made after 01.01.1985 and before 15.12.2007. The respondents- Corporation on coming to know about the unauthorised constructions made by the petitioner, and after issuing the notice under Section 450 of the Act, demolished the structures on 29.04.2011 and that later, the petitioner has completed the construction work without there being any prior permission under the Act and the sanctioned plan and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits under the BPS and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. It is the case of the respondents that there is a violation of Rule 16 of the guidelines issued along with G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007, which reads as under: - “During verification, if it is found that the applicant has undertaken further additions or extensions to the existing building, then such applications shall be summarily rejected duly forfeiting the entire penal amount and necessary action shall be taken against the unauthorized building including demolition as per the law.” So, in view of the fact that the petitioner is said to have made constructions after 2007, his case cannot be considered under the BPS with reference to G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007. But, however, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the building was constructed by the petitioner leaving all the setbacks and therefore, the petitioner could be given permission to apply for sanction of the building plan as per Section 455- A of the Act. In view of the fact that the building is constructed by leaving all the setbacks as required under the building rules, the petitioner, if so advised, can make an application under Section 455-A of the Act before the Commissioner. Thereafter, the Commissioner shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions under Section 455-A of the Act. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 25th November 2011 DR