THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 10432 of 2011 Dated: 27.07.2011 Between: Mrs. Noorunnisa Begum, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 10432 of 2011 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 24.08.2011directing removal of the alleged objectionable portions in premises No.1-6-806, Zamisthanpur, Musheerabad is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri R.A.Achuthanand for respondents 3 and 4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 24.08.2011 shows that the respondents 3 and 4 herein had earlier filed W.P.No.13688 of 2009 alleging that the writ petitioner made constructions by encroaching neighbouring public land. Having taken note of the fact that the writ petitioner (3rd respondent therein) had already filed an application for regularisation of the unauthorised construction under Building Penalisation Scheme, this Court disposed of W.P.No.13688 of 2009 by order dated 05.11.2009 directing the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to take up the application submitted by the writ petitioner for regularisation and decide the same within a period of three months. It was left open to the respondents 3 and 4 herein to put forward their contentions/objections before the Commissioner. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 24.08.2011 came to be passed by the 2nd respondent holding that the writ petitioner had made the construction by projecting the balconies in to the roads abutting the building in question and directing removal of the objectionable portion i.e projection of balconies and directing the writ petitioner to submit the revised plan to consider the Building Penalisation Scheme application. Learned standing counsel for the Corporation at the outset raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition pointing out that against the impugned proceedings an alternative remedy of appeal is available before the committee constituted under 11(6) of the Building Penalisation Scheme. It is also brought to my notice that against the impugned order, the 3rd respondent has already preferred an appeal so far as the impugned order went against her. Having regard to the fact that an efficacious remedy of appeal is available and the 3rd respondent has already preferred an appeal, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority constituted under clause 11(6) of the Building Penalisation Scheme. If any such appeal is preferred within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the appellate authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter. Till such time, there shall be stay of demolition of the alleged objectionable portions. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 27.07.2011 KLP