IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 823 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 13782 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.RAJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.823 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is filed challenging the common order dated 25.04.2001 in Writ Petition Nos.11548 and 13782 of 1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in so far as W.P.No.13782 of 1999 is concerned. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.13782 of 1999 is the appellant herein. The said writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to demolish the alleged illegal structures constructed on the land bearing municipal No.1-8-495/22 to 25 in Survey No.194/1 of Begumpet Village belonging to the appellant in which a college is being run by him, on the premise that he made an application to the respondents for regularization of the alleged illegal constructions under the Building Regularization Scheme by paying the necessary fee, which was eventually rejected by the first respondent by his order dated 26.06.1999 passed in File No.2340/BRS/7/98. The validity of the same was challenged. The other W.P.No.11548 of 1999 was filed seeking a direction to the respondents to initiate necessary action to demolish the illegal structures on the land appurtenant to the palace Vicar Manizl (razak gadh) vide door No.1-8-507 in Survey No.194/1 of Begumpet Village on the rear site of the building and also to prevent further encroachments. The learned single Judge after hearing both the parties passed a common order. The learned Judge observed that there are number of civil litigations between the parties as to the subject land. Eventually, the learned Judge, while dismissing W.P. No.11548 of 1999 as infructuous, disposed of W.P.No.13782 of 1999 filed by the appellant herein by setting aside the order dated 26.06.1999 impugned therein and the first respondent-Commissioner was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. The learned Judge also observed that the appellant should be given a reasonable opportunity to rectify the curable defects, if any, pointed out by the municipal authorities. However, the learned Judge directed that the appellant should not run the college in the building in question till such time. Hence, the writ appeal. Sri S.R.Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the revision filed by the appellant is still pending consideration before the Government and such pendency is not a bar for the appellant to run the college in the building in question in view of the interim orders passed by this Court on 15.05.2001 in W.A.M.P.No.1696 of 2001 at the stage of admission. He further submitted that even if there is any violation, as pointed out by the respondents, in the construction of the building in question, in view of the latest scheme evolved by the Government to penalize and thereby regularize the unauthorized constructions, the appellant cannot be denied such benefit. He therefore sought for a direction that the appellant may be permitted to run the college while allowing him to make an application once again to the respondents for regularization of the alleged illegal construction of the building in question and also to raise all the contentions in the revision pending before the Government. Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that in view of the rejection of the application filed by the appellant for regularization of the illegal construction of the building in question, the learned Judge rightly directed the appellant not to run the college till such time his case is reconsidered and disposed of in accordance with law; and that since the revision filed by the appellant is pending before the Government, he can raise therein all his contentions which are permissible in law. He therefore submitted that the writ appeal may be dismissed as the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court. We have gone through the material on record. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the order dated 26.06.1999 passed by the first respondent is consequent to the interim directions dated 21.06.1999 given by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.11548 of 1999. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant herein carried the same in appeal and a Division Bench of this Court granted status quo with regard to possession while remitting the matter back to the learned single Judge to decide the same afresh. The Division Bench also directed the appellant herein not to run any educational institution in the building in question. In view of the interim order dated 21.06.1999 given by the learned single Judge and in compliance thereof, the first respondent considered and rejected the application of the appellant by his order dated 26.06.1999. Considering all these aspects in detail, the learned Judge, while dismissing W.P.No.11548 of 1999 as infructuous, disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellant as stated hereinbefore. Be that as it may, since the revision filed by the appellant is stated to be still pending consideration before the Government and in view of the fact that the latest scheme has been evolved by the Government for regularization of the unauthorized constructions by penalization, the appellant is entitled to apply for the same, if he so chooses and the same is permissible, seeking regularization of the alleged illegal construction of the building in question. Furthermore, while admitting the present writ appeal, this Court granted interim direction to the appellant permitting him to run the college pending further orders. Keeping the same in mind, we make it clear that the appellant is permitted to run the college in the building in question till such time his revision is considered and disposed of by the Government. The appellant is also permitted to agitate all other contentions which are permissible in law in the revision. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned common order dated 25.04.2001 in so far as W.P.No.13782 of 1991 is concerned, passed by the learned single Judge. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 24th June, 2009. PGS/VGSR