IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 5235 of 2009 Between: Smt. M. Sujitha W/o.M. Deshmanth Rao R/o.H.No.5-3-112/4 & 5, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally Circle, Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, Kukatpally Hyderabad, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or order or direction directing the respondent Corporation or its Officials, subordinates or any one claiming under it not to demolish, not to interfere and cause no obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property i.e., the house bearing No. 12-6-23/6/6, on east part of plot No. 3 in Sy.No.685 of Kukatpally Municipal and Circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District and further direct to regularize the schedule property. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NUTHALAPATI RAJA SEKHARAM Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE, STANDING COUNSEL FOR G.H.M.C. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.5235 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. According to the petitioner, she is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.12-6-23/6/6 (Old No.6-38/1/2) on eastern part of Plot No.3 in Sy.No.685, admeasuring 340 sq. yards, situated at Kukatpally village and circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. With an intention to construct a new house by demolishing the old structures, the petitioner approached the concerned Municipal authorities, with all relevant and required documents, seeking permission to construct a new house and that she paid requisite fees of Rs.1,03,015/- for according such permission. It is her further case that on the assurance given to her that the permission would be accorded to her, she demolished the old structures and when she was proceeding with construction of a new house, the officials of the respondent, apart from rejecting her application on the ground that the said site is not covered in approved layout, entered into her premises and interfered with her constructions and, therefore, she filed a writ petition being W.P.No.24736 of 2007 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent therein to grant her the permission to build new house by demolishing the existing old structures and also to restrain the officials of the respondent therein from interfering in any way with her construction activities, but, subsequently, she had withdrawn the same on the assurance given to her by the respondent officials that she would be given permission provided she withdraws the said writ petition, and she was also directed to get permission for land/building regularization under the Land and Building Regularization Scheme existing during that period. The grievance of the petitioner is that subsequent to withdrawing the said writ petition, she constructed new house and has applied in time to the Revenue authorities under Land Regularization Scheme and under Building Permission Scheme, but the respondent officials, instead of granting permission to her, are interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property and also trying to demolish the said property, without prior notice as per the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Hence, the writ petition. It is to be noted that even according to the petitioner’s own admission, she applied to the concerned authorities under Land Regularisation Scheme and also under Building Permission Scheme, but however even before obtaining such permissions, she proceeded with construction activities. Unless and until the petitioner obtains appropriate regularization orders from the concerned authorities, she cannot claim the relief as sought for in this writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 17.03.2009 v v