IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12524 of 2009 Between: G.Srinivas Reddy S/o.Ramaswamy Reddy R/o.H.No.9-89, Buttonguda, Bollaram, Secunderabad rep. by his GPA Holder M/s.Ekta Developers, by its partner Neelesh Agarwal ..... PETITIONER AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner and Special officer, Tank Bund road, Hyderabad ....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not passing the final orders even after lapse of more than six weeks from the date of paying the penal charges as directed through his letter dated 25.4.2009 on a par with the other similarly placed applicants as being illegal, arbitrary, highhanded besides in violation of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice as well as principles of promissory estoppel and consequently direct the respondent to issue regularization order forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.RAMCHANDER GOUD Counsel for the Respondent: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12524 OF 2009 ORDER: The writ petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.3.07 guntas in Sy.No.37/A/a of Matchabolaram Village. Though the petitioner had developed the same into house-sites since the layout had not been approved by HUDA, the petitioner made an application for regularization in terms of A.P. Regulation of Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2007 made under G.O.Ms.No.902, dated 31.12.2007. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was informed vide letter of the respondent Corporation dated 25.04.2009 to submit certain documents specified thereunder along with the penal amount payable. The petitioner states that the documents required were already submitted and the penal charges were also paid. Since no final order has been passed by the respondents, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondent is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. The material on record shows that the petitioner submitted the documents on 18.05.2009 as required by the Corporation vide its intimation letter dated 25.04.2009. The penal charges to the tune of Rs.10,28,039/- were also paid by way of demand draft. In the circumstances, the respondent is bound to consider the request of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner’s request for regularization of the layout in the land in question under G.O.Ms.No.902, dated 31.12.2007 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 26.06.2009 RAR/gbs THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12524 of 2009 DATED : 26-06-2009