IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.25545 of 2009 BETWEEN: Smt. K. Aruna ….PETITIONER(S) and Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.25545 of 2009 ORDER: The 3rd respondent is said to be the immediate neighbour of the petitioner. When the 3rd respondent started unauthorized constructions, the petitioner raised objections. At one point of time, she has approached this Court also. In the recent past, Government introduced a scheme for regularization of the unauthorized constructions. The 3rd respondent submitted an application for regularization of the unauthorized constructions. In view of this development, the 2nd respondent issued a reply to the petitioner to the effect that the 3rd respondent obtained permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for Ground + 2 Upper floors and as regards the extra floors constructed by him i.e. the third and fourth floors, an application was made on 13.07.2008 under Building Penalization Scheme. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in demolishing the unauthorized constructions raised by the 3rd respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Building Penalization Scheme framed by the Government became handy for the persons who made unauthorized constructions and in some cases the scheme was upheld by this Court. One of the clauses in the scheme is that whenever an application is made under that scheme, the proceedings to demolish the premises relating to the unauthorized constructions shall not be carried out. Once it is evident that the 3rd respondent submitted an application, the 2nd respondent cannot be expected to demolish the unauthorized constructions made by him. This Court is of the view that the petitioner can certainly put forward her objections/contentions before the Municipal Corporation vis-à-vis the application submitted by the 3rd respondent for regularization of the unauthorized constructions made by him. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it shall be open to the petitioner to submit her objections/ representations to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vis-à-vis the application submitted by the 3rd respondent for regularization of the unauthorized constructions made by him. The Municipal Corporation shall consider and dispose of the application submitted by the 3rd respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order duly taking into account, the objections raised by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 25th November 2009 CVRK