IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3437 OF 2008 DATED:07.09.2010 Between: P. Murali and another … Petitioners And The Kakatiya Urban Development Authority Warangal, rep. by its Vice-Chairman and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 3437 OF 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2, in not taking any action on petitioners’ representations dated 31-12-2007, 31-1-2008 and 5-2- 2008 in which they have complained about the unauthorized and illegal constructions made by the third respondent, in the premises bearing Plot No.3, Ward No.2, Block No.5, B.K. Reddy Colony, Nakkalagutta, Hanmakonda, Warangal District, as illegal and arbitrary. The first petitioner is an individual and the second petitioner is a committee representing the residents of Bethi Kesava Reddy Colony, Hanmakonda. The third respondent also owns a site in Plot No.3 in the same colony. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though the third respondent is proceeding with the construction contrary to the sanctioned plan and made unauthorized construction by not maintaining set backs as per the approved plan, no steps are being taken by the respondents 1 and 2 for removal of such unauthorized constructions. It is submitted that the petitioners have filed representations dated 31-12- 2007, 31-1-2008 and 5-2-2008 before respondents 1 and 2 and in spite of the same, no action has been taken. A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent – Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation. In the said counter, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the third respondent obtained permission No.105 dated 28-7- 2007 in File Roc. No.G2/10436/2007 for construction of ground and three floors and has laid slabs by deviating set backs against the sanctioned plan, and as such the respondents have initiated proceedings by issuing notice under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, as applicable to Warangal Municipal Corporation. It is also stated that in view of the said action taken by the respondents, it cannot be said that the respondents have not taken any action on the representations of the petitioners. A further report is also filed by the Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation, wherein it is stated that after completion of the construction by the third respondent, the flats were sold to third parties and the said flats are occupied by the purchasers. It is also stated that the third respondent has submitted an application under Building Penalization Scheme, vide No.G2/2/2008, and also paid penalty amount of Rs.88,600/- and the application is pending before the second respondent. From the counter affidavit and the report filed by the Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation, it is clear that there are certain deviations made by the third respondent in undertaking construction of the building in the plot in question, but inasmuch as his application for regularization of the same is pending consideration and he has paid penalty of Rs.88,600/-, no direction can be granted at this point of time, unless such application is decided by the competent authority. It is also to be noticed that the Building Penalization Scheme (BPS), which was notified by the Government is already upheld by a Division Bench of this Court. In that view of the matter, in case the application filed by the third respondent for regularization of the deviations is rejected, the petitioners can agitate the matter for removal of such deviated portions. The Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to move the authorities concerned against the deviations of construction made by the third respondent subject to disposal of the application filed by the third respondent under BPS vide No.G2/2/2008. It is made clear that if the petitioners have any objection for the proposed regularization of the deviated portion of the construction made by third respondent, it is also open to them to approach authority concerned. No costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 07.09.2010 bnr