THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27041 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is a resident of TRT No.33, Jawaharnagar, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad and respondent No.3 is said to be his neighbour. Respondent No.3 made construction over his premises bearing TRT Nos.147 and 148 (1-1-18/198) in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The petitioner submitted a representation to respondent Nos.1 and 2. His grievance is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not taken any steps so far. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, a counter-affidavit and an additional counter-affidavit are filed. It is stated that initially, notice under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the Act’) was issued to respondent No.3 on 28.02.2005, on finding that the deviations as to set backs, projection of balconies and construction of two extra rooms have taken place. O.S.No.1025 of 2005 filed by respondent No.3 against the notice was dismissed by the Court of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Order of temporary injunction granted by that Court was vacated on 22.03.2006. The appeal is said to have been dismissed on 17.11.2006. The respondents further state that after the order vacating the temporary injunction in favour of respondent No.3 became final, notice under Section 636 of the Act was issued on 05.02.2008. It is further stated that respondent No.3 filed an application for regularization of the unauthorized construction and that the same is pending. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner is under the impression that respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not act in the matter at all. The particulars furnished by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit disclose that promptly a notice under Section 452 of the Act was issued and further steps could not be taken on account of the interim orders passed in the suit. After the order of temporary injunction was vacated and the appeal filed against it was dismissed, notice under Section 636 of the Act was issued. In the recent past, the Government in Municipal Administration Department introduced a Scheme for regularization of unauthorized constructions. Naturally, respondent No.3 made an application for regularization of the unauthorized construction. The petitioner can raise all his objections before respondent No.1, as and when the application submitted by respondent No.3 is taken up. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to file his objections to the application submitted by respondent No.3 for regularization and the same shall be taken into account by respondent No.1. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 03.02.2011. kdl THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26257 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner was allotted a plot, carved out of Survey No.91/1 of Bhadrachalam Revenue Village, Khammam District by the Government. The land was taken over from Kusumaharinath Baba Temple, governed by the Endowments Act. A tribal organization initiated proceedings before the Special Deputy Collector, Bhadrachalam under the A.P. Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 read with Regulation 1 of 1970 alleging that the land which is in scheduled area is transferred in favour of non-tribals. The effort made by the petitioner to get himself impleaded in those proceedings did not fructify. Ultimately, the Special Deputy Collector passed order, dated 12.04.2007 directing eviction. The petitioner constructed four shops in the plot allotted to him. The possession of the shops was resumed and was handed to Bhadrachalam Municipality, respondent No.1 herein. The petitioner filed C.M.A.No.24 of 2007 before the Additional Agent to Government/Project Officer, ITDA, respondent No.2 herein, against the order of eviction, dated 12.04.2007. At about that time, respondent No.1 issued auction notice, dated 23.11.2007, proposing to conduct auction of leasehold rights of four shops resumed from the petitioner. A notification to that effect was (issued) on 23.11.2007. The petitioner challenges the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare for respondent No.2. The petitioner lost possession of the shops constructed by him in the course of implementation of the orders, dated 12.04.2007, passed by the Special Deputy Collector. Unless the order of eviction is set aside, he cannot get possession of the premises. Once he is out of possession, the petitioner cannot challenge the steps taken by respondent No.1 (to) put the leasehold rights to auction. He would not get the benefit in any way. . …………dismissed and it is left open to respondent No.1 to proceed with the auction. It is directed that in case the petitioner emerges as highest bidder or expresses his willingness to pay the highest bid amount as rent, he shall be permitted to run the shops purely the capacity of a lessee, which in turn shall be subject to the outcome of C.M.A.No.24 of 2007. Respondent No.2 shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already disposed of. Respondent No.1 shall take immediate steps for conducting auction. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 03.02.2011. kdl