HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 12734 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner herein claims to be the absolute owner of house bearing No.19-83/22/A, admeasuring 215 sq. yards situated at Chandrapuri Colony, Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 30.04.1998 and Court decree dated 15.11.2007 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner would submit that M/s. Chandrapuri Construction Company had constructed several independent houses; she was one of the purchasers; and she had filed application Nos.LARS/855 of 2008 and BPS/2649/2008 dated 28.04.2008, and had paid the prescribed fee, seeking regularization of the construction of the building. While matters stood thus, the subordinates of the respondents are said to have come over to the petitioner’s site on 01.02.2009, asked her to remove the compound wall on the northern side, and to raise a fresh compound wall leaving 10 feet set back from her original compound wall. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2283 of 2009 and this Court, by its order dated 10.02.2009 in WPMP.No.2908 of 2009, directed maintenance of status quo. The petitioner would contend that the respondents bore grudge against her in view of her filing W.P.No.2283 of 2009 and, by proceedings dated 15.06.2009, rejected her application for building regularization on the ground that she had raised construction, in the open space earmarked for parking, in the layout approved by the HUDA, in its proceedings dated 22.12.1992. The said order of rejection is under challenge in this writ petition. Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, the Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, submits that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of an appeal under the Building Penalization Scheme itself against an order rejecting the application for regularization of the building. Since the petitioner has an effective remedy, under the Building Penalization Scheme, of preferring an appeal against the order of rejection, I see no reason to entertain the writ petition. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if she so chooses, to prefer an appeal in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Building Penalization Scheme, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:08.06.2010 usd