THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16016 of 2008 Dated: 29-12-2009 Between: Yalamanchili Narayana Rao ..... PETITIONER AND Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, rep., by its Commissioner and three others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16016 of 2008 ORDER: With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions against the 1st respondent – Municipal Corporation to take action against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for removal of constructions which are made by them contrary to the sanctioned plan in the premises bearing No.40-25-35, situated at Masjid Street, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the premises in question. The petitioner herein also claims one-sixth share in the property. He filed a suit for partition and separate possession of one-sixth share and obtained orders of status quo. But in the meantime, the 2nd respondent has entered into a development agreement with respondent Nos.3 and 4 to develop the property in question. By obtaining due sanction and approval for construction, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have constructed the building. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though constructions are made in deviation to the sanctioned plan, no steps are being taken by respondent No.1. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent – Corporation while giving the particulars of deviations made by respondent Nos.2 to 4 in a tabular form, it is stated that they have already taken steps for removal of the deviated portions. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent has also submitted an application for regularisation of deviations under Building Penalisation Scheme notified vide BPS No.13444/08. It is also stated that in view of issuance of notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), it cannot be said that the respondent – Corporation has not taken any action. Separate counter affidavit is also filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4. While generally denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that they have made construction in view of the permission granted by the 1st respondent – Corporation for construction of apartment building consisting of stilt for parking, ground + 4 upper floors. It is further stated that the deviations alleged by the petitioner are very minor and as such, no steps have been taken for demolition of the premises. In view of the averments made by the respondents in the counter affidavits, it is clear that the application filed by the 2nd respondent for regularisation of the structures which are in deviation of the sanctioned plan is pending consideration. The Building Penalisation Scheme is notified in view of the provisions under Section 455 AA of the Act, by way of amendment to the said statute. The validity of the said provision and the scheme came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court in K.H.V Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1] and this Court upheld the same. In view of the judgment of this Court referred to above and also taking into account the application filed by the 2nd respondent for regularisation of the structures which are in deviation of the sanctioned plan, no directions can be granted for demolition of the structures. It is also evident from the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent – Corporation that the Corporation has already taken steps by issuing notice under Section 452 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Corporation has not taken any steps. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to put forth his objections, if any, for the proposed regularisation on the application submitted by the 2nd respondent. Subject to the outcome of the said application, the petitioner is also given liberty to move the appropriate authority after final orders are passed. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29-12-2009 ks [1] 2009 (4) ALD 803 (DB)