IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7586 of 2009 Between: C. Vathsaa Gupta W/o. C.E. Gupta R/o. Plot No. 505, Road No.22 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant City Planner Circle-10, GHMC, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief City Planner Town Planning Section (HO) GHMC, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 appropriate writ or order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in regularization of the flats of the petitioner in Krishna Apartments Road NO.4 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34 in Premises No. 8-2- 410, duly considering the application Nos. BPS/574/W8-2/Circle- X/CZ/2008 and BPS/575/W8-2/Circle-X/CZ/2008 dt. 24-3-2008 as illegal, unreasonable unfair unjustified unconstitutional and unsustainable and direct the respondents to regularize the flats of the petitioner under the scheme of penalization of unauthorizedly constructed building/Building constructed in deviation of the sanction plan. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that her husband purchased a super built up area of 2774 Sq. feet consisting of two unauthorized flats in the upper cellar portion out of the 36 flats constructed by the builders, namely Sri B.V. Raju and M/s. Babuji and Company, and since the date of purchase the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of them. While so, the petitioner states that out of 36 flats constructed by the Builders, 32 flats were constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan, and the remaining four flats were not authorized. As the flats purchased by the petitioner from the Builders are unauthorized, she made two applications on 24.3.2008 for regularization of the two unauthorized flats under Building Penalization Scheme. The petitioner states that out of the four unauthorized plots, the 3rd respondent regularized one flat belonging to one C. Prem Kumar Gupta by granting approval, and it is her grievance that the 3rd respondent, without considering her applications for regularization of her two flats, is threatening to demolish her flats, which is illegal and arbitrary. The learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Building Regularization Scheme is under challenge before a Division Bench of this Court and the Writ Appeal was heard and orders are reserved, and in view of the pendency of the final adjudication of the matter, the respondents have not passed any orders on the applications of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the applications 24.03.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner in the light of the orders that may be passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the pending Writ Appeal. Till such time, both the parties shall maintain status quo obtaining as on today. If the petitioner, in the guise of the applications, made for regularization of her flats under the Building Regularization Scheme, makes any constructions, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 15th April, 2009 bcj