THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9281 of 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the stereotype notices, dated 08.04.2008, issued by the respondent under Section 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), by which, they were directed to remove the unauthorized constructions. The petitioners, who are three in number, have claimed that they are owners of the flats constructed in the premises bearing No.74- 12-8/1, Krishiraj Apartments, Patamata, Vijayawada. They have stated that the said apartment complex was constructed pursuant to the permission accorded vide proceedings bearing Rc.B.A.No.1544/94, dated 04.02.1995. The first petitioner claims purchase of the flat from her vendor in 2000 and the second and third petitioners in 1995. It is their case that they purchased the flats for valuable consideration. It is also their case that they filed applications on 17.04.2008 under the Building Regularisation Scheme (for short ‘the Scheme’) for regularization of the structures and as much as such applications are pending consideration, the respondent cannot take steps for removal of the flats, which they purchased. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Commissioner of the respondent Corporation, while denying various general allegations, it is stated that the building permission was sanctioned in favour of M/s.Krishiraj Apartments vide B.A.No.1544/94 on 04.02.1995 for construction of stilt, ground and two floors apartment. It is further stated that the petitioners are the purchasers of the flats, which were unauthorisedly constructed by converting the parking area. It is further stated that as much as the said constructions are unauthorized, the impugned notices were issued for removal of the same and to restore the parking area. It is also stated with regard to the applications filed by the petitioners that in view of the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition, in which, validity of the Scheme was questioned, the applications of the petitioners are not yet considered. So far as the Scheme, which was introduced by the respondent, is concerned, by making certain amendments to Section 455 of the Act, the said Scheme has been upheld by this Court. Even according to the respondent, the applications filed by the petitioners for regularization of unauthorized constructions have been still pending. Although it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent that even as per the Scheme, constructions in the parking area cannot be regularised, it is a matter to be considered by the competent authority as per the Scheme. In view of pendency of the applications filed by the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be a further direction to the respondent not to take any steps for removal of the flats, till appropriate orders are passed on such applications. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st JULY, 2010. kvni