THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32777 of 2010 Date:25.08.2011 Between: Arja Giridhar Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Government of A.P., Reptd by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A.Sreedhar Counsel for Respondent No.1 : AGP for Municipal Adminstration Counsel for Respondent No.2: Smt G.Jhansi Standing Counsel for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Counsel for Respondent No.3: Smt K.Aruna, Standing Counsel for VGTMUDA Counsel for Respondent No.4: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for the following substantial relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not considering the notice dated 03.09.2010 submitted by the petitioner for taking action against the 4th respondent herein for the illegal and unauthorized constructions making in deviation of the sanctioned plan issued by the 2nd respondent in B.A.No.2624/2006, dated 13.02.2007, at Rs.No.451/1A in D.No.54-15-1 in an extent of 567 square yards in Gunadala, Vijayawada as illegal and arbitrary and against the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and for a consequential direction directing the official respondents herein to take appropriate action as against the 4th respondent for illegal and unauthorized constructions made by her at D.No.54- 15-1, Gunadala, Vijayawada, forthwith.” Even though notice was served on respondent No.4, no one appeared on her behalf. I have heard Sri A.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt G.Jhansi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 has raised constructions in deviation of sanctioned plan and that, in spite of the representations made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has not been taking any action. The plea of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has constructed the building in deviation of the sanctioned plan is not controverted by respondent No.2. Smt G.Jhansi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that the application of respondent No.4 for regularization of the illegal constructions under the Building Penalization Scheme was pending when the counter-affidavit was filed in January, 2011. She is unable to state as to whether the said application is disposed of so far or not. In my opinion, there is no justification for respondent No.2 to keep the applications for regularization pending for unduly long time as it would only create a situation where the applicants will take shelter under such pendency and continue to enjoy the buildings raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan. If the application of respondent No.4 for regularization is not already disposed of, respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of one month from today. The petitioner shall submit his objections within two weeks from today. Before deciding on the application of respondent No.4, respondent No.2 shall consider the objections of the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.41643 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th August, 2011 Note: Issue CC by one week. B/o DR