THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6344 of 2010 Dated:22.03.2010 Between: Smt.Fatima Begum. …Petitioner And The State of A.P., Rep.by its Collector, Hyderabad, And other. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6344 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice of the third respondent dated 02.03.2010. By the said notice the petitioner was advised to stop construction over premises No.1-3-1029, Kavadiguda in T.S.No.14/1/1, Block-A, Ward No.76 of Bakaram Village (hereafter, petition schedule land). The property was purchased by petitioner’s father, a proprietor of M/s.Hyderabad Iron Foundry in 1913. The proprietary concern was converted into partnership firm in 1953, and in 1968 it was dissolved. All the partners statedly released their right in favour of the petitioner. A portion of the property was also sold by her father and petition schedule land is in possession of the petitioner from 1969. When the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008 containing the guidelines for regularization of the Government encroachments, the petitioner paid the necessary amount and applied for regularization in 2005. The same is pending. The petitioner obtained permission from Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and commenced construction of residential house in the place of existing house. The third respondent issued notice dated 24.09.2009 advising to stop construction. Again the third respondent issued the impugned notice. The petitioner contends that as she is the absolute owner of the property, the third respondent is not competent to issue such notice. At the stage of admission itself learned Assistant Government Pleader obtained instructions. According to her the petitioner encroached 376.7 square yards out of 1048 square metres in T.S.No.14/1/1. As her application for regularization is pending she cannot raise any construction. This Court has perused G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008. A perusal of the same would show that there are number of situations where the encroachment cannot be regularized. For instance if the site is affected under the alignment of master plan, the construction is made in open spaces of approved layout, constructions are made on alignment of nalas, sikhams, water bodies etc, there cannot be any regularization. It would be known after only enquiry is conducted with reference to regularization rules. Therefore, pending regularization of occupation of petition schedule land if the petitioner is permitted to make construction it would certainly defeat the very purpose of G.O.Ms.No.166. The petitioner, therefore, cannot have any grievance about the impugned order. As the petitioner’s application is pending regularization the same may be disposed of by the respondents as early as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition with the above observations is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 22.03.2010 vs