HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.25185 of 2010 Date : 7-3-2011 Between : P.Murali Mohan Reddy .. 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 28-8-2010 and 26-9-2010 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.9 in Sy.No.232, admeasuring 426.66 sq. yards, situated in Padmavathipuram Gram Panchayath, Tirupathi. He made an application on 13-11-2006 to respondent No.1 for granting of permission to construct a house on the said plot. Respondent No.1, vide proceedings No.B.A.No.534/G2/2006, dated 22-12-2006 considered the said application and granted building permission for raising ground and two floors. However, contrary to the said sanctioned plan, the petitioner constructed 3rd, 4th and 5th floors and is stated to have applied to respondent No.1 on 30-8-2010 and again on 15-9-2010 for regularizing the illegal construction. The petitioner pleaded that respondent No.1 has received the said applications and without passing any orders thereon, issued the impugned notices alleging that he has constructed a five storied building, that he has occupied the site belonging to Padmavathipuram Gram Panchayat by constructing a compound wall, which is earmarked for park and directed him to handover the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that though his application for penalization is pending, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned 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.1, it is stated that while the regularization scheme is applicable to the buildings constructed after 1-1- 1985 and before 15-12-2007, as per the petitioner’s own averments, the unauthorized construction was made beyond the cut-off date and that therefore the said scheme has no application. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that in the guise of raising construction over his land, the petitioner has occupied park site allotted to Padmavathipuram Gram Panchayath by constructing a compound wall in the encroached portion and that the petitioner has violated the draft plan by constructing fifth floor unauthorisedly. The question whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief under the building penalization scheme envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.901, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M1) Department, dated 31-12-2007 or not requires to be decided by respondent No.1 in consideration of his application and the material filed in support thereof. Admittedly, the petitioner’s application is pending with respondent No.1. Therefore, it is appropriate that before any action against the petitioner is taken, respondent No.1 disposes of his application pending for penalization in terms of scheme envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31-12- 2007. As regards the allegation that the petitioner has occupied the park site, respondent No.2 is permitted to issue a detailed notice to the petitioner in this regard calling for his objections. If the objections are filed within the prescribed time limit, respondent No.2 shall be free to consider the same and pass an appropriate order before taking action. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 7-3-2011 AM