IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.10949 OF 2010 Between: S. Aruna Rani Devi W/o. Satyanarayana .... Petitioner AND The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam .... Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.10949 OF 2010 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that she is the absolute owner and possessor of building bearing D.No.49-44-28, Lalitha Nagar, Dondarparthi, Visakhapatnam which consists of ground + 4 floors, constructed as per the approved plan and she constructed 5th floor without any permission. For regularization of the 5th floor over and above the permitted area, she has filed a application under Building Penalization Scheme in BPS No.Zone.II/12/2972 dated 26-07-2008 and, thereafter, the respondent issued endorsement in BPS No.II/12/2972 dated 20-02-2010 requesting the petitioner to submit the relevant documents i.e. Copy of sanctioned plan, 3 sets of plans, Balance amount, Copy of latest property tax receipt attested by Gazetted Officer, structure certificate etc., as required under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and a No Objection Certificate from the Fire Service Department and the Airport Authority of India and the petitioner has already filed the necessary documents except payment of the balance amount towards regularization fee. 2. The petitioner further stated that so far, the respondent has not specified the balance amount to be paid towards regularization fee and even before disposing of her application, the officials of the respondent are attempting to demolish the 5th floor constructed in her building, without fixing the balance penalization charges and without finalizing her BPS application, in violation of G.O.Ms.No.901 MA & UD (MI) dated 31-12-2007 and G.O.Ms.No.112 MA & UD (MI) dated 31-01-2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and dispose of the BPS application of the petitioner by fixing the balance penalization amount for taking appropriate action. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is directed not to demolish the building of the petitioner until and unless her BPS application is finalized and disposed of. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J May 05, 2010. KTL