THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23769 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of plot No.8, situated at Kamalanagar, B Camp, Kurnool. In his immediate neighbourhood, respondent No.2 is said to have constructed flats, after obtaining permission in relation to Plot Nos.92 and 93 of a different lay out. It appears that there are some disputes between the petitioner on the one hand, and respondent No.2 on the other, as regards the public amenities etc. O.S.No.1485 of 2003 filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool is said to be pending. It is brought to the notice of this Court that part of the relief has since been granted. The petitioner states that the very construction made by respondent No.2 is contrary to several provisions of law and he has also encroached into plot No.91. It is stated that respondent No.2 submitted an application before respondent No.1 for regularization of encroachments and deviations. The petitioner asserts that respondent No.2 cannot be extended the benefit of any regularisation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioner has already approached a civil Court to seek redressal of his remedies vis-à-vis respondent No.2 in certain respects. The Government evolved Building Penalization Scheme enabling the owners of the buildings, which are constructed in deviation from the sanctioned plan or without sanction at all, subject to certain conditions. In case the petitioner feels that respondent No.2 cannot be extended such benefit, he can submit representation/objection before respondent No.1 and the same needs to be taken into account, whenever the application of respondent No.2 is considered. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit representation/objection before respondent No.1 vis-à-vis the application submitted by respondent No.2 for regularization. As and when the application of respondent No.2 is taken up, the objection raised by the petitioner shall also be considered. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:04.11.2009 kdl