THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23311 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners constructed a building upon an unapproved plot, in Sy.No.119 (New), of Waddepally Revenue Village, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. Thereafter, they submitted an application for regularization before the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, the 1st respondent herein. Vide proceedings dated 31-03-2009, the 1st respondent regularized the construction. However, one Smt. Mahonara, wife of Sammi Reddy, submitted a representation to the 1st respondent, making claim to the very plot. On receiving the same, the 1st respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioners on 28-08- 2009, directing them to explain as to why the order of regularization be not cancelled. The petitioners submitted explanation on 25-09-2009. On a consideration of the same, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 13-10-2009, cancelling the order of regularization. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the respondents. The facility of regularization under the Building Penalization Scheme, scan be availed only in relation to the violation of the building bye-laws and other requirements. By no stretch of imagination, it can be a device to resolve the private disputes. In fact, the relevant G.O., as well as the clauses contained in the order of regularization make this aspect clear. The respondents regularized the structure made by the petitioners, not being aware of the civil dispute, about the plot. Once an objection has come from a rival party, in all fairness to the petitioners, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice, and on consideration of the explanation submitted by them, passed the impugned order. No defects as to jurisdiction, or patent illegality are pointed out. The 1st respondent cannot be expected to decide civil disputes. However, inasmuch as the request of the petitioners for regularization of the structure stood rejected, the amount deposited by them must be refunded. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the impugned order, but directing that, it shall be open to the petitioners to file a suit, or pursue other remedies, to enforce their rights; and the respondents shall refund the amount paid by the petitioners, towards regularization fee, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.05-11-2009. KO