THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.2890 of 2010 Date: 01.04.2011 Between: Asheeth Raj Saxena … Petitioner and The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.2890 of 2010 ORDER : Heard Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and with the consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed to direct respondent No.1-Corporation to remove the wall and staircase said to have been raised by respondent No.2 in the common passage without permission in the petitioner’s house bearing No.8-2-420/A, situated at Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of a portion of the property admeasuring 270 square yards bearing Municipal No.8-2-420/A, situated at Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Incidentally, the petitioner got the said property by way of a gift said to have been executed by the 2nd respondent from out of a total extent of 530 square yards, retaining the remaining portion with himself. It appears that there is a common passage providing access to both the portions and the staircase is the only means to reach the first floor of the petitioner’s building. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to get the said staircase demolished. 4. The 1st respondent-Corporation has filed a counter affidavit stating that the building of the 2nd respondent is an old building, which was unauthorisedly constructed by the 2nd respondent and it has only one approach to go to the upper floor through the staircase. The 2nd respondent is residing in the first floor and there will be no way to go to the first floor, if the said staircase is removed. It is also stated that respondent No.2 has submitted an application by paying the penal charges seeking regularization under the Building Penalisation Scheme and the 1st respondent-Corporation will take appropriate decision in that regard. 5. Evidently, the construction made by the 2nd respondent appears to be an old one. Even otherwise, the 2nd respondent has already approached the 1st respondent-Corporation to avail the benefit under the Building Penalisation Scheme by paying the requisite charges. The petitioner, who has obtained a portion of the said property by way of gift from the 2nd respondent, apparently has no bonafides in filing the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived, besides being pre-mature. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 01.04.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.2890 of 2010 01.04.2011 (Msr)