HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6333 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri C.M.R. Velu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and, at their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondents 1 and 2 in seeking to demolish the petitioner’s house at MCH.No.1-7-630/28/1, Ram Nagar, Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. The petitioner contends that as the building was constructed on a plot admeasuring 80 sq. yards, permission of the Municipal Corporation was wholly unnecessary since G.O.Ms.No.423, M.A. dated 31.07.1998 exempts the requirement of obtaining permission for houses constructed within a plot of 100 sq. metres. By G.O.Ms.No.423, M.A. dated 31.07.1998 the Government issued orders prescribing the procedure for obtaining building permission. Under clause 1.1 (a) thereof, no prior sanction, of a building application, is necessary for construction of individual residential buildings in plots upto 100 sq. mtrs. and for a height restricted to 10 mtrs. i.e. ground + 2 upper floors (without stilts) subject to following conditions. i) such plot should be less than or equal to 100 sq. mtrs. as per the following: a) Part of an approved layout or subdivision. b) Allotted by or purchased from a public agency like Housing Board, Housing Corporation etc. c) Covered by pattas issued by Revenue Department. d) T.S. Record or Registered Sale Deed of date prior to the date of these orders. Admittedly, the plot in question was neither allotted nor purchased from a public agency. It is not even the petitioner’s case that he satisfies any of the ingredients of clauses (a) to (d) of clause 1.1(a)(i) of G.O.Ms. No.423 dated 31.07.1998. As such the question of the petitioner’s plot being exempted from obtaining building permission, in view of G.O.Ms.No.423, M.A. dated 31.07.1998, does not arise. Sri C.M.R. Velu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would place reliance on J.Vasundara Bai v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[1], wherein this Court observed that the very purpose of G.O.Ms.No.423 was to exempt persons holding small extents of property from the requirement of obtaining permission under the relevant provisions of the Act; and it was permissible in law for a person who constructed a building to submit the documents or to pay the fee even after commencement of construction provided it accords with the other norms. This Court, in J. Vasundara Bai1, has only examined the question whether the applicant can deliver copies of the drawings and pay the necessary fee after undertaking construction. This Court made it clear that, while an application could be made after construction was completed, the other norms stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.423, M.A. dated 31.07.1998 were required to be complied with. As noted hereinabove G.O.Ms.No.423, M.A. dated 31.07.1998 applies to plots which satisfy the requirements of items (a) to (d) of clause 1.1(a)(i) thereunder and, in as much as the building in question is not one such, G.O.Ms.No.423 has no application. Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, would submit that a part of the building was constructed after the revised building rules came into force and, on this ground also, the construction carried out earlier was neither in accordance with law nor was it protected under G.O.Ms.No.423, M.A. dated 31.07.1998. Sri C.M.R. Velu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, under Section 455-A of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioner can make an application seeking regularization of the building without sanction of the plan. Learned Counsel would state that the petitioner would make an application within one week from today seeking regularization of construction of the building in question and, atleast till the application was considered and orders were passed thereupon by the Commissioner, a direction should be issued to the GHMC not to take further action for demolition. In case the petitioner makes an application, under Section 455-A of the Act, within one week from today the respondents shall defer further action for demolition of the building in question till the application seeking regularization is disposed of. If, however, no such application is made within the time stipulated herein above, it is open to respondents 1 and 2 to take action in accordance with law. The application for regularization shall be examined and it is only after respondents 1 and 2 are satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that all the conditions stipulated under Section 455-A of the Act are fulfilled, would the petitioner be entitled for regularization of the construction. In case respondents 1 and 2 come to the conclusion, and pass appropriate orders, that construction of the building in question cannot be regularised under Section 455-A of the Act it shall, thereafter, be open to them to take further action in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:25.03.2010 Note:Operative portion by Wire at party’s cost. B/o usd [1] 2006(1) ALD 378