IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18508 of 2009 BETWEEN: B. Lakshmi, W/o. B.Visveswara Rao, R/o. Kukatpally, Hyderabad …Petitioner AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally, Hyderabad And others. …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18508 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner obtained permission for construction of stilt plus four upper floors from the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and the erstwhile Kukatpally Municipality in the year 1996, over a plot bearing No.589, HIG, Block No.31, Kukatpally. The construction was completed and the 3rd respondent purchased the flat in that complex. The petitioner brought into existence a flat in the stilt floor and submitted an application for regularization thereof under G.O.Ms.No.419, Municipal Administration Department, dated 30.07.1998. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the application is pending, the respondents are trying to demolish the structure. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit stating that G.O.Ms.No.419, Municipal Administration Department, dated 30.07.1998, was stuck down by this Court and that under a scheme, which is in vogue, regularization of construction in stilt floor is impermissible. It is alleged that the flat owners of the complex have submitted complaints about the congestion being caused to them. One of the flat members, namely, the 3rd respondent got herself impleaded. She contends that the petitioner and her family started living in the stilt floor stating that it would be for a limited time and that slowly, they have made it their permanent residence causing hardship to the owners of the flats. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt Kalpana Ekbote, learned standing counsel for 1st and 2nd respondents and Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner obtained permission for construction of stilt plus four upper floors and that entire stilt floor was shown as parking area. Even while providing for various unauthorized constructions subject to certain conditions, the Government made it amply clear from time to time that no place, which is earmarked for parking, particularly in multi-storied complexes, could be permitted to be put to other use. The application filed by the petitioner under provisions and existing schemes does not clothe her with a right to use the parking area for any other use. She has converted a part of the parking area as flat and is residing therein, which naturally would cause hardship to the owners of the flats. This Court is not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. However, the petitioner granted two months time to remove the structure so constructed in the place earmarked for parking. If she fails to do so by 15.02.2010, it shall be open to the municipal authorities to remove the same without any further notice. ________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY December 15, 2009 BVV