THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23047 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner complains that the third respondent has made construction in the premises bearing Nos.25-7-10 and 11 contrary to the sanctioned plan and in violation of the orders passed by this Court on 07-08-2009 in W.P.No.13786 of 2009. She claims to have made a representation, dated 14-09-2009 to the respondents 1 and 2 with a request to take necessary action and complains that no action is taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the first respondent, learned standing counsel for the second respondent and the learned counsel for the third respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she brought to the notice of respondents 1 and 2 that the third respondent is making unauthorised construction, no action has been taken. It is represented on behalf of the third respondent that an application for regularisation of the unauthorised construction has been submitted to the second respondent by the owner of the building and the same is pending. The Government introduced a Building Penalisation Scheme in G.O.Ms.No.901, M.A., dated 31-12-2007 and the facility of regularisation of unauthorised construction is extended subject to certain conditions. In case an application is filed by the owner of the premises in question, the petitioner is certainly can raise her objections for regularisation. The second respondent shall be under obligation to take the same into account as and when the application is taken up. On the other hand, if no such application is pending, necessary steps, as provided for in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, needs to be initiated. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that : (a) in case the owner of the premises bearing Nos.25-7-10 and 11 has submitted an application for regularisation, it shall be open to the petitioner to raise objections for such regularisation and the first respondent shall take the same into account before any orders are passed and (b) if no such application is pending, the second respondent shall initiate action against the violations on the part of the third respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. 14th December, 2009. Note : Issue C.C. in two days. B/O skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23047 of 2009 Date : 14-12-2009 Between : Nimmagadda Satyamatha .. Petitioner And Director of Town and Country Planning, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents