IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 107 of 2002 Between: P. Subramanyam Sastry (Died per LRS),S/o.P.Krishna Murthy Age:83, D.No.6-9-26, R/o.H.No.9/2, Arundelpet, Guntur. 1 Mrs. P.Bharathi, W/o. Late P.Nageswara Rao, Age:49 R/o. Flat No. 507, Padmavathi Arcade, Sainathpuram, A.S.Rao Nagar, Secunderabad-62. 2 P. Krishnamurthy, S/o. Late P. Nageswara Rao, R/o. Flat No. 507, Padmavathi Arcade, Sainathpuram, A.S.Rao Nagar, Secunderabad-62. 3 P. Krishna Prasad S/o. Late P. Nageswara Rao, R/o. Flat No. 507, Padmavathi Arcade, Sainathpuram, A.S.Rao Nagar, Secunderabad-62. 4 P. Seetharam S/o. Late P. Nageswara Rao R/o. Flat No. 507, Padmavathi Arcade, Sainathpuram, A.S.Rao Nagar, Secunderabad-62. (P- 1to 4 brought on record as per LRs to deceased sole petitioner as per C.O. Dt. 13.10.04 in WPMP 22242/04. .... PETITIONERS AND The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur. .....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 one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the demand notice reference BRS.No.5486/98/G.2 dt.28.12.2001 issued by the Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently restrain the respondent from giving effect to the same and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.KRISHNA MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.VENKATARATNAM The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 107 of 2002 O R D E R In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the demand notice, dated 28-12-2001 issued in proceedings BRS No.486/98/G.2, Division-2, by the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Guntur. 2. The writ petitioner has obtained permission for demolition of his house which was his ancestral property situated at Arundelpet, Guntur and for construction of a new house in the year 1999 from the then Municipality, Guntur. It is his case that there were minor deviations in the construction to that of the sanctioned plan in leaving the set back in front of the building. Earlier the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.419 (Municipal Administration & Urban Development ) (MI) (MA), dated 30-07-1998 to regularize such deviated constructions made in deviation of the sanctioned plan by collecting penal charges. It is stated that pursuant to the said scheme notified in G.O.Ms.No.419 Municipal Administration & Urban Development ) (MI)(MA), dated 30.07.1998, he applied for regularization and has paid Rs.4000/- towards the regularization charges. But, however, on calculating the rates as notified under the scheme, the respondent had come to the conclusion that the amount payable for regularization was Rs.2,06,315/- and as the petitioner had paid Rs.4000/- only, for the balance amount of Rs.2,06,315/-, the impugned notice is issued. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition the validity of the very orders issued in G.O.Ms. No.419, dated 30-07-1998 came to be questioned before this court. A Division bench of this court allowed the writ petition by quashing the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.419. However, it is submitted that subsequently there were amendments to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act,1965 and the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act and A.P. Urban Area (Development) Act,1975 empowering the respondents to regularize the unauthorized constructions as a one time measure. It is stated that rules were framed for regularization under G.O.Ms. No.901, dated 31-12-2007 it is stated by Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners that after the amendments were made to the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act and on issuance of G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007 the 2nd petitioner has again applied for regularization by making a fresh application No.3257 and the same is pending consideration. It is also stated that regularization fee has also been paid as per the rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007. It is also further brought to the notice of this court that though the validity of the said newly introduced scheme was also came to be questioned before this court, this court has already upheld the same. 4 In view of quashing of G.O.Ms.No.419, dated 30.07.1998 there is no need to adjudicate the validity of the demand issued under the impugned notice. Inasmuch as it is stated that in view of the subsequent scheme which is issued for regularization of buildings, the petitioner has made an application, I deem it proper to direct the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for regularization which was accepted under Receipt No.3257 in accordance with the rules governing the scheme for regularization, provided the petitioner has complied with the conditions of the scheme by paying the necessary fees. 5 It is further directed that till the application of the petitioner is considered and appropriate orders are passed, no steps shall be taken against the petitioner for demolition of the structures which are subject matter of the application. 6 Subject to above directions, the writ petition is dispose of. No order as to costs. _________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J. 10th June, 2009 yvl/asp