IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.29533 of 2010 Between: Mudda Mallikarjun. … Petitioner And Vikarabad Municipality, Vikarabad, Reptd., by its Commissioner, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, Senior Counsel for Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Sri Pavan Kumar Aditya Malladi for Smt.Shanti Neelam for R.1. Sri O.Manohar Reddy for R.2 and R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in initiating further steps against respondent No.2 in pursuance of letter No.C/BPS/101/2008, dated 25-5-2010 in respect of house bearing No.4-2-141, situated on the main road, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Pavan Kumar Aditya Malladi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Shanti Neelam, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1- Municipality; and Sri O.Mahonar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.2 is the uncle and respondent No.3 is the first cousin of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 has constructed a residential building after obtaining permission for ground + first floors. However, in deviation of the sanctioned plan, he has constructed ground + two floors and a pent house and applied for regularization of the said unauthorized constructions. The petitioner has filed his objections to the said application. On consideration of the said application and the objections, respondent No.1, vide his proceedings No.C/BPS/101/2008, dated 25-5-2010, rejected the application of respondent No.2 for regularization on as many as five grounds. It is the pleaded case of respondent No.2 that he has resubmitted the application on 7-6-2010 by giving clarifications on the grounds of rejection; and that vide letter No.C/BPS/101/2008, dated 11-6-2010 respondent No.1 has informed respondent No.2 that the further request of the latter is under consideration and that necessary orders will be passed as per Rules after verifying the issues mentioned in the reply. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have thus pleaded that their further request for regularization is pending with respondent No.1. At the hearing, Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that with the rejection of respondent No.2’s application for regularization, respondent No.1 is bound to take action for removal of the unauthorized constructions. He further submitted that respondent No.2, who obtained permission for construction of a residential building, is running a hospital, which is wholly impermissible unless permission for change of the building use is obtained by him. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submitted that even though the application for regularization was rejected, it was resubmitted with clarifications on the grounds of rejection and that from the letter dated 11-6-2010 it is evident that respondent No.1 is reconsidering the application of respondent No.2 for regularization. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1 it is, inter alia, stated that the application for regularization was rejected on 25-5-2010 and that appropriate action will be taken after the last date for filing applications for regularization expires. The counter-affidavit is, however, silent on the purported further application of respondent No.2 for reconsideration. At the hearing, it has come out that a suit for partition is pending between the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 3 and other family members. Obviously, in view of the differences between the petitioner on one side and respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the other, the former has been insisting that the building of respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall be removed. Irrespective of the motives of the petitioner, if it is found that the building constructed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 is in violation of the sanctioned plan and if the order rejecting the application for regularization becomes final, the unauthorized structures are liable to be pulled down. While the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that his client’s application for regularization is under reconsideration, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner submitted that there is no provision for such reconsideration under the scheme. As noted above, there is no reference in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.1 to the application of respondent No.2 for reconsideration. However, from the material produced by the petitioner, it appears that respondent No.1, vide his letter dated 11-6-2010, has informed respondent No.2 that his purported reply dated 7- 6-2010 is under consideration and necessary order will be passed as per rules. In my opinion, till the order of rejection of the application of respondent No.2 attains finality, any direction to remove the unauthorized structures would cause hardship to the interests of respondent Nos.2 and 3. In this view of the matter, respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of representation, dated 7-6-2010, of respondent No.2 for reconsideration of his application for regularization, if the same is pending, strictly in accordance with law and communicate his decision to respondent No.2 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the decision that may be taken by respondent No.1, he shall take further action in accordance with law. In the event the application of respondent No.2 for reconsideration is rejected, respondent No.1 shall act in accordance with law for removal of the unauthorized structures. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall also be free to avail appropriate remedy in such an event. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP Nos.37627 and 37628 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:21-10-2011 MNR