IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4791 of 2008 Between: Ummaleti Pavani W/o. Surendra R/o. 12/888-2, Rajendra Nagar, Kukkalagunta, Nellore, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Nellore Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Nellore, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the proceedings of the respondent dated 31-01-2008 in U.C./B.A./No.2/2008/B.08 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, void, contrary to law and against the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Regulation and Penalization of Unauthorizedly constructed building and buildings constructed in deviation of the Sanctioned of the Plan Rules 2007 and accordingly set aside the same and consequently the respondent be directed to regularize the construction as per new building rules. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.V.MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent.: MR.A.SREEDHAR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Ummaleti Pavani with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation-respondent in U.C./B.A/No.2/2008/B.08, dated 31.01.2008, as illegal, unjust and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner purchased 52 square yards in ward No.19, bearing Old Door No.14 (New Door No.39) of Korada Street, Nellore, Nellore District, for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 21.03.2007 from 1) Mohammad Sharmila Begum W/o. Mohammad Azeez; 2) Mohammad Shameena D/o.Late Mohammad Jilani Basha. She demolished the existing building and constructed a new building after obtaining permission from the respondent-Corporation. Since there were deviations in the construction of the house, an application was filed by her for regularization of the deviations as provided under G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 31.01.2008 and necessary amount has also been paid by her by way of demand draft. Whileso, the respondent-Corporation issued notice dated 31.01.2008 under Section 452(1) and (2) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, directing her to remove the constructions made by her in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The said notice is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Respondent-Corporation filed counter-affidavit. T.S.R.Anjaneyulu, Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter- affidavit that the petitioner submitted an application along with plan to the respondent-Corporation for approval. The respondent-Corporation approved the plan submitted by the petitioner vide B.A.No.334/07-G2, dated 19.06.2007. The petitioner constructed ground plus first and second floors in deviation of the approved plan. On inspection, the respondent-Corporation issued notice to the petitioner under Section 452 (1) and (2) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Neighbours of the petitioner also filed complaint in C.No.29 of 2008- B.1 before the Institution of A.P.Lokayuktha, Hyderabad seeking for demolition of the unauthorized constructions made by the petitioner in deviation of the approved plan. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for regularization of the constructions made in deviations of the approved plan under Building Penalisation Scheme and the same is pending consideration. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. 5. The factual aspect of the petitioner making an application for regularization of the deviations made by her while constructing the building is not in dispute. It is also admitted in the counter-affidavit that her application is pending consideration. 6. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage directing the respondent- Corporation not to proceed with the demolition of the constructions made by the petitioner in deviation of the approved plan pending consideration of her application for regularization. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:2nd July, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}