IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6536 of 2009 Between: G. Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Prakash Reddy, R/o. H.No. 6-3-204/5, Sivarampally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rajendranagar Circle, Rangareddy District, Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner. .....RESPONDENT 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, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent -Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rajendranagar Circle, Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the premises bearing Door No. s6-6- 45/2 on Plot No. 11 admeasuring an extent of 100 Sq. yards and 6-6- 45/1 on plot No. 12 admeasuring an extent of 136 Sq. yards situated at rest of the area of Katedhan Village, Rajendrangar Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, without resorting to the due process of law, as bad, illegal, arbitrary and opposed to law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the premises bearing D.No.6-6-45/2 in Plot No.11 admeasuring 100 sq. yards of land and premises bearing D.No.6-6-45/1 in Plot No.12 admeasuring 136 sq. yards of land situated in Katedhan village, Rajendranagar Mandal and Municipality, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds dated 27.05.2005, and he constructed small structures therein. Thereafter, he submitted an application dated 30.08.2008 to the respondent under G.O.Ms.Nos.112 MA, dated 31.01.2008 and 272 MA, dated 28.03.2008, seeking regularization of the structures, and the same is pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-Commissioner, without passing any orders on his application, is trying to demolish the structures on the ground that it is constructed without obtaining permission. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for G.H.M.C. appearing for the respondent, and at their request, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage. Admittedly, the application, dated 30.08.2008 made by the petitioner seeking regularization of the building is pending consideration by the respondent. Hence, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondent-Commissioner is directed to consider the application dated 30.08.2008 said to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously, and till such time, he is directed not to demolish the premises in question. The petitioner is also directed not to make any further constructions and create any third party interests. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 30th March, 2009 Note: Furnish copy in two days. B/o bcj