THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.A.No.853 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard both sides. At their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. The appellants, who are the writ petitioners, aggrieved by certain directions given by the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, filed this appeal. Brief facts are that the appellants had filed the writ petition inter alia seeking to declare the action on the part of the 1st respondent in not acting upon the complaint dated 5.2.2008 made by the petitioners for demolition of certain illegal structures raised by respondents 2 to 4 in plot No.42 of Durganagar Co-operative Housing Society, Hyderabad District, as illegal and arbitrary. The main grievance of the appellants is that admittedly when such constructions were made quite a long time back ie., much prior to the year 1997 and further though a notice was issued under Sections 452 and 636 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, no action has been taken. Hence, the appeal. The learned Single Judge by taking into consideration the submissions made by both counsel, and taking into account that the contesting respondent stated that the petitioners filed an application for regularization in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.901 dated 31.12.2007, the same has to be given effect soon after disposal of the application filed by R-3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the constructions were much prior to the dates as contemplated under the said G.O. and mere filing of such application would not confer any right nor any such indulgence can be shown in favour of respondents. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in fact the very scheme was challenged before this Court and this Court has given certain directions to dispose of such representations on merits and till disposal thereof, no action should be given. Having considered the submissions made, we are of the opinion that since there is no dispute in regard to the date of constructions, which is admittedly much prior to the enforcement of the aforesaid scheme and therefore such scheme would not have any application. There can not be any regularization as such. In view of the same, mere filing of application as per the scheme does not entitle the applicant to seek for regulatisation. Therefore, the observation of the learned Single Judge that “Since, the 1st respondent has already initiated proceedings, which culminated into an order, under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, the same has to be given effect by the 1st respondent soon after disposal of the application filed by the 3rd respondent under Building Penalization Scheme”, is not warranted. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge. The respondents are directed to take action forthwith in terms of the complaint dated 5.2.2008 made by the appellants, in accordance with law. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 15th October, 2008. PNV