The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.25141 of_2008 Order: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks declaration, by way of Mandamus, that the action of the first respondent in not taking steps for demolition of the structures constructed by the second respondent in deviation to the sanctioned plan, in house bearing No.4-1-956, Usmansaheb Pet, Nellore, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, in spite of his representations, dated 24-12-2007, 12-03-2008 and 02-04-2008, is illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent, who is his neighbour, has taken permission only for construction of ground floor, but constructed the first floor also without leaving any set backs and contrary to the approved plan. It is his grievance that though he made representations on 24-12-2007, 12-03-2008 and 02-04- 2008 to the first respondent, no steps have yet been taken thereon. Separate counter affidavits were filed by the first and the second respondents. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that on submission of an application by the second respondent, the first respondent-Corporation has approved the plan in favour of the second respondent for construction of ground floor residential building vide B.A.No.94/97-G1, dated 12-06-1997, and for construction of the first floor over the existing ground floor vide B.A.No.420/07-G2, dated 27th January, 2007. It is further stated that the second respondent has constructed the first and the second floor of the building in deviation to the sanctioned plan, but he has submitted an application under Building Penalization Scheme (for short ‘BPS’) vide B.P.S.No.677/08 by paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards penal amount and the same is pending consideration. Ultimately, it is stated that further steps thereon will be taken in accordance with the rules, after receipt of final orders from the Government in the BPS. Respondent No.2 also filed counter-affidavit in similar lines. In the said counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner also has made unauthorized constructions and submitted an application for regularization of the said deviations under BPS. It is further stated that in view of the minor deviations to the constructions undertaken by him, he has already submitted an application under BPS and the same is pending consideration. Perused the entire material available on record. In view of the amendments made to the Municipal Corporation Act, by inserting provisions under Sections 455 (A) and 455 (AA) thereof, the Municipal Corporation has notified BPS under G.O.Ms.No.901, MA, dated 31-12-2007, and validity of the said Scheme came to be questioned before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court has upheld the Scheme. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the constructions made by the second respondent in deviation to the sanctioned plan cannot be regularized, in view of pendency of the application of the second respondent under BPS before the first respondent-Corporation, no directions for demolition of the same can be granted at this stage. However, it is for the first respondent-Corporation to consider the same before passing orders on the application filed by the second respondent under BPS. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation, if he has any objection for the proposed regularization of unauthorized structures raised by the second respondent, within a period of six weeks from today. On such representation being filed, the first respondent shall consider the same before passing orders on the application submitted by the second respondent under BPS. However, it is left open to the first respondent- Municipal Corporation to take further steps in the matter subject to final orders to be passed on the said application filed by the second respondent. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Date: 31st December, 2009 lur