THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8550 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of premises bearing No.21-2-115 to 117 of Gulzar Houz, Hyderabad. On noticing that certain constructions made by him are in deviation from the sanctioned plan, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.2 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007, seeking regularization of the unauthorized construction. Through proceedings, dated 17.05.2010, respondent No.2 rejected the application of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Three grounds are mentioned by respondent No.2 while rejecting the application of the petitioner. In the first ground, it is mentioned that the litigation is pending vis-à-vis the property and according to Rule 9 of the Rules contained in G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007, the application of such nature cannot be considered. In the second ground, it is mentioned that the shops are constructed in the parking space against the sanctioned plan. The third ground is that the petitioner constructed unauthorized shops in the cellar. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that O.S.No.5113 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was filed by a third party alleging that the building was constructed within the prohibited distance from the protected monument i.e. Charminar and the said suit cannot be treated as an impediment. He further contents that the property in question was de-listed from the protected properties. He undertakes to remove the shops in the cellar. Assuming that the order passed by respondent No.2 suffers from any infirmity or that the petitioner is prepared to remove the objectionable constructions, the same can be urged before the appellate authority. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the authority concerned. It is made clear that unless O.S.No.5113 of 2009 pertains to any title dispute or claim of any relief against the Municipal Corporation by the petitioner, it cannot be treated as an impediment. It shall be open to the petitioner to remove such of the objectionable constructions, pointed out in the impugned proceedings to bring the building within the parameters. In case the appeal is presented within four (4) weeks from today, no penal action shall be taken against the petitioner till the disposal thereof. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:30.03.2011. Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl