HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 7712 OF 2010. DATED 24TH AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN Smt. M.Rukmini ….Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. By its Commissioner, Lower TankBund, Hyderabad and anr. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 7712 OF 2010. ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of open plot No.A-54 admeasuring 250.55 square yards situated in Sy. No. 218/1/3 of J.J. Nagar Colony, Malkajigiri Municipality, having purchased the same from her vendor vide document dated 18.7.2007. After purchase, she started construction of a building with three ﬂoors in the said open plot, without obtaining sanctioned plan from the Municipality. Therefore, she made an application under G.O. Ms. No. 112, dated 31.1.2008 for regularization of the constructions, and the same is pending consideration with the second respondent. Now, it is her grievance that without reference to the pendency of her application for regularization, the second respondent issued notice dated 16.3.2010 under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 directing her to stop further construction and submit explanation as to why the alleged unauthorized constructions shall not be removed/demolished. However, as the petitioner did not submit her explanation within the stipulated time, the second respondent issued notice dated 29.3.2010 under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Hence, the petitioner ﬁled the present Writ Petition to declare the notice dated 29.3.2010 issued under Section 636 of the HMC Act, 1955 by the second respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction not to take any coercive action until the her application dated 29.3.2008 for regularization is considered and disposed of. When the matter came up for hearing on 09.04.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner ﬁled an additional aﬃdavit. This Court taking into consideration the additional aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioner, passed an interim order, which reads as follows: “An additional aﬃdavit is now ﬁled by the petitioner wherein it is stated that they have not undertaken any construction after the BPS application was ﬁled on 29.03.2008. The aﬃdavit is silent as to whether the petitioners have made any construction after the cut off date i.e. 15.12.2007. Sri D.Govardhana Chari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would express apprehension that, if no interim orders were granted, the respondent Corporation may demolish the building in the weekend. He would request that the interests of the petitioner be protected atleast for a short period. The respondent corporation is directed not to demolish the building in question in case the structure raised is prior to the cut off date on 15.12.2007. It is made clear that this order shall not prevent the respondents from taking action in accordance with law inrespect of construction made after the cut oﬀ date of 15.12.2007 or of constructions not entitled for regularization under the BPS scheme.” Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that the application ﬁled by the petitioner for regularization under Building Penalisation Scheme is under consideration and the respondents will pass orders in accordance with law within a period of one week. In the circumstances, both sides conceded for disposal of the Writ Petition with the following directions: The respondent authorities are directed to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 29.3.2008, which is pending consideration for regularization of the building under Building Penalisation Scheme, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till the application, as directed above, is disposed of, status quo existing as on today with respect to the building in question, shall be maintained. It is made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the ﬁnal order to be passed by the respondent authorities, it is open for her to avail the legal remedies available to her under law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 24T H AUGUST, 2010. Msnr.