HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.25234 of 2010 Date : 7-3-2011 Between : Penubala Mohana Madhavi .. Petitioner And Tirupathi Urban Development Authority, Tirupathi, represented by its Vice-Chairman, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : CH.Janardhan Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2 : Smt.Ch.Vedavani The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notices dated 13-2-2010, 24-6-2010 and 9-8-2010 issued by respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri CH.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.Ch.Veda Vani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record. The petitioner is the owner of plot No.11 in Sy.No.232, admeasuring 312.11 sq. yards, situated in Padmavathipuram Gram Panchayath, Tirupathi. She made an application on 26-3-2009 to respondent No.2 for granting of permission to construct a house on the said plot with ground and first floors. Respondent No.2, vide proceedings No.B.A.No.07/2009, dated 26-3-2009 considered the said application and granted building permission for raising ground and first floors. However, contrary to the said sanctioned plan, the petitioner constructed a pent house after the second floor and is stated to have applied to respondent No.2 on 20-7-2010 for regularizing the illegal construction. The petitioner pleaded that respondent No.2 has received the said application on 20-7-2010 and without passing any orders thereon, issued the impugned notices directing her to stop construction work. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering her representation for regularization of the unauthorized construction, respondent No.2 has been issuing notices referred to above. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner was granted permission to construct ground floor and first floor, but contrary to the approved plan she started construction of the building increasing its height and therefore a series of notices were issued to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that she made a representation on 20-7-2010 is denied. In the counter affidavit filed by the Vice-Chairman of respondent No.1 it is inter alia stated that respondent No.2 has no authority to grant permission to the petitioner as the land is situated within the jurisdiction of respondent No.1. It is further stated that the petitioner started construction of the second floor in deviation of the purported sanctioned plan and that by virtue of the powers delegated under G.O.Ms.No.302, Municipal Administration, dated 15-4-2008, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned notices. Respondent No.1 has also stated that no representations from the petitioner have been received by them and that as per G.O.Ms.No.901, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M1) Department, dated 31-12-2007, the Building Penalization Scheme is applicable only to the buildings constructed after 1-1-1985 and before 15-12-2007 and that the regularization applications have to be made within 90 days from the date of notification i.e., 31-12- 2007. On the above premises, it is maintained that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The mainstay of the petitioner’s plea is based on her purported application for regularization and her entitlement for consideration of such application in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31-12-2007, as amended in G.O.Ms.No.370 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M1) Department, dated 25-8-2010. As noted above, the plea of the petitioner that she made her application for regularization is denied by both the respondents. However, this aspect has lost its relevance in view of the fact that G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31-12-2007 does not apply to the petitioner’s case because under Para 1(2) of the said G.O., it is provided as under: “They shall be applicable to existing buildings in the jurisdiction of all Municipal Corporations, Urban Development Authorities and Municipalities in the State of Andhra Pradesh constructed after 1-1-1985 and before 15-12-2007”. Even on the petitioner’s own showing she was granted building permission on 23-6-2009 and it is not her pleaded case that she constructed the building between 1-1-1985 and 15-12-2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.370, dated 25- 8-2010 by which it amended clause 6 of G.O.Ms.No.901 dated 31-12-2007 and subsequent G.Os. by substituting the words “but not beyond 15-11-2010” for the words “but not beyond 15-8-2010”. A perusal of clause 6 of G.O.Ms.No.901 dated 31-12-2007 shows that it deals with scrutiny, rejection and approval by the competent authority and the time limit for completing such process. The said clause has nothing to do with the cut-off date in respect of the constructions to be eligible for penalization scheme. Irrespective of the subsequent amendments to G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31-12-2007, the period of construction for eligibility for consideration under the Building Penalization Scheme remained static i.e., between 1-1- 1985 and 15-12-2007. In this view of the matter, the impugned notices issued by respondent No.2 for the constructions which were admittedly made in deviation of the purported sanctioned plan after 15-12-2007, cannot be interfered with. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.32240/2010 is dismissed as infructuous. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 7-3-2011 AM