HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12167 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri K.R.Raman, Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Kalpana Ekbote, Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and, at their request, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. This case has a chequered history. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to go into the details thereof and it would suffice observe that when the respondents herein and the State Government initiated proceedings for demolition of the building and for eviction of the petitioners from an extent of approximately 78 square metres of land, the petitioners filed O.S.No.985 of 2003 before the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said suit was decreed on 3.2.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents herein filed A.S.No.270 of 2006 and the Appellate Court by judgment dated 17.4.2007 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court. The erstwhile tenant of the petitioners filed W.P.No.6506 of 2008 questioning the inaction of the respondents herein, and the State Government, in failing to remove the unauthorized construction made by the petitioners despite several representations made by him. This Court, by order dated 16.7.2008, disposed of the Writ Petition directing the respondents herein and the State Government to continue the process of removing the unauthorized construction and encroachments made by the petitioners herein after disposal of the two applications filed by the petitioners claiming benefits under G.O.Ms.No.901 and G.O.Ms.No.166. While G.O.Ms.No.901 dated 31.12.2007 relates to regularization of the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner, the application filed under G.O.Ms.No.166 is for regularization of encroachments on Government land. The Petitioners’ application under G.O.Ms.No.901 was rejected by proceedings dated 15.5.2010 a copy of which, the petitioners claim, was served on them only on 26.5.2010. The application made by the petitioners under G.O.Ms. No.166 is said to be pending before the Government as on date. The petitioners’ grievance, in short, is that the building penalization scheme itself provides for a right of appeal against the order of rejection and, since the scheme permits an appeal to be filed within 30 days, the action of the respondents in seeking to have the building demolished in the interregnum is arbitrary and illegal. Since the building penalization scheme provides for a right of appeal, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition permitting the petitioners herein to file an appeal before the competent authority within two weeks from today. In case such an appeal is filed within the aforementioned period along with an application seeking stay of demolition, the respondents herein shall not take further steps for demolition of the building in question till the stay petition filed by the petitioners, along with the appeal, is disposed of by the competent authority. It is made clear that, in case the petitioners do not prefer an appeal within the period stipulated hereinabove, it is open to the respondents to proceed with the demolition of the structures in question in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. __________ 31-5-2010 Note: Issue C.C. in three days B/o asp