THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.32 of 2010 Date: 11.03.2010 Between: Sunil C. Kapadia. … Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and two others … Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.32 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the structures raised by him in Flat No.104, B-Block, Ground Floor, Nandanam Apartments, F.S. Lane, Nampally, Hyderabad. He submits that his mother purchased a flat along with the built up area under registered sale deed dated 02.02.1983; after his mother’s death the property devolved upon him as her legal heir; he had removed the old asbestos sheets over the structure in the month of March, 2009 and had covered the same with RCC roof; the authorities had forcibly damaged pillars on 25.09.2009; thereafter notice dated 29.12.2009 was issued under Section 461 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 directing him to stop construction work and produce the sanction plan for verification; he had requested ten days time to produce the documents as they were filed in Court; and, since these documents were filed in O.S. No.2145 of 2009 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, copies thereof could not be produced. Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would plead discrimination contending that others similarly situated were not proceeded against. Learned counsel would submit that the Commissioner has the power, under Section 455-A, to regularize unauthorized constructions. A counter-affidavit is filed by the City Town Planner contending that the petitioner had constructed the first floor without obtaining prior permission and that the respondents had acted in accordance with law in seeking to demolish the illegal structures raised by the petitioner herein. On the plea of discrimination it is contended by Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation that, since others, whose cases the petitioner seeks to compare, had raised structures prior to the year 1985, the petitioner’s case stood on a different footing and the plea of discrimination is without basis. Section 455-A of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act enables the Commissioner to regularize the construction made without obtaining sanctioned plan subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in Clauses (a) to (c) thereunder. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to permit the petitioner to submit an application to the Commissioner, seeking regularization of the construction made by him, under Section 455- A of the Act. If such an application is made within three weeks from today, the Commissioner shall consider the same in accordance with Section 455-A of the Act and pass orders thereupon in accordance with law. In case no application is filed within the time stipulated hereinabove, or in case the Commissioner rejects the request for regularization, it is open to the respondents to take action, in accordance with law, for demolition of the building/structure in question. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: 11.03.2010 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Note: Issue copy by one week. B/o MRKR/asp