HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.6043 and 6044 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: M/s. IDPL Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited filed these two writ petitions. It is stated that the Society acquired Acs.92.00 cents of land in Kukatpally Municipality, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, way back in the year 1987, and obtained a layout for 964 plots, with all amenities and open places. According to the petitioner, the entire area developed by it is residential in nature, and no commercial activity is permitted, even according to the conditions imposed by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, the 2nd respondent herein. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent in W.P.No.6043 of 2007 and respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No.6044 of 2007 made constructions of commercial buildings without obtaining permission and contrary to the building bye-laws, and in spite of repeated representations made by them, to then Kukatpally Municipality and the present Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the 2nd respondent, no steps were taken against the buildings. The petitioner contends that not only the construction is put to commercial use, but also it was made in deviation of all building bye- laws. This Court passed an interim order on 10.02.2011 pointing out the gist of the allegations made by the petitioner and requiring the Municipal Corporation to respond to the same. A detailed counter- affidavit is filed today. According to them, the layout obtained by the petitioner abut National Highway No.9 at Kukatpally and recently the area upto the depth of 90 feet on either side of the Highway is declared as commercial. On that basis, it is stated that it was permissible for the private parties to the writ petition to construct the buildings for commercial purpose. Applications in terms of G.O.Ms.No.901 dated 31.12.2007 for penalization are also said to have been filed. Heard Sri R.V.Chalapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration; Sri M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent, Dr.Y.Padmavathi, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent- Municipal Corporation and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.P.No.6043 of 2007. The petitioner is under the impression that no part of the area developed by it can be put to commercial use. That no doubt is true when the layout was sanctioned by the 2nd respondent. In the recent past, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.288, Municipal Administration, dated 03.04.2008, directing that commercial activity is permissible as per the Zoning Regulations up to the depth of 90 feet abutting National Highway. It is not in dispute that the place where the buildings in question are constructed is within that belt of 90 feet. Therefore, the objection as to land use cannot be sustained. So far as the deviation from the sanctioned plan is concerned, the contesting respondents have already approached the Municipal Corporation by filing applications under G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007. If the petitioner is having any objection for extension of such relief, they can submit their representation before the Municipal Corporation. Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit its objections for grant of any relief in terms of G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007. The Municipal Corporation shall take the same into account, before passing any orders on the applications for regularization. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:31.03.2011 GJ