IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7629 of 2000 Between: Dr.Jayasree Desai, W/o.Dr.Sudhendra Desai, R/o.3-5-893/A, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Radhika Apartment Flat Owners Association rep. by Secretary L.Chengal Reddy H.No.1-10-13/A, Street No.4, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad R2 is impleaded as per court order dt. 16-11-2006 in WPMP 35593 of 2005 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, directing the respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated -4-2000 for regularisation of the ﬂat bearing No.17 situated at H.No.1-10-13/A, Ground Floor, Radhika Apartments, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad.20 and further direct the respondent not to take any coercive steps to demolish the said ﬂat and pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7629 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner purchased Flat No.17 in apartment block known as Radhika Apartments, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad. She let out the same to an Advocate. When the ﬁrst respondent Corporation issued notice under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, directing the tenant to remove the Oﬃce room constructed in the parking area in stilt portion contrary to sanctioned plan, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.25610 of 1999, and the same was disposed of on 10.04.2000 directing the notice of demolition within 24 hours as a notice of three weeks and the petitioner was directed to submit explanation. This Court also observed that if ﬁrst respondent Corporation comes to conclusion that parking area is misused by converting it into oﬃce room, it may be demolished. The petitioner thereafter allegedly made a representation on 21.04.2000 seeking regularization and also expressing willingness to pay charges for such regularization. The petitioner alleges that in spite of the same, no orders are passed, but as there is a threat of demolition, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation for regularization. Learned Counsel for both sides advanced arguments with reference to latest legal position. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the building regularization scheme, which was in vogue at the relevant time has now been changed as compulsory building penalization scheme vide orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri I.Samba Siva Rao, petitioner’s application for such regularization is still pending. If that be so, the ﬁrst respondent is directed to take up the matter and consider the petitioner’s representation for regularization strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007, keeping in view the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.25610 of 1999, dated 10.04.2000. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16.09.2008 vs To 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 2CCs to 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}