APHC010656852016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23838/2016 Between:

Macha Bhaskar ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. P SHASHI KIRAN

2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)

3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)

The Court made the following:

ORDER

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not permitting the petitioner to continue construction work pursuant to the undated notice issued by the 2nd respondent and not considering the representation dated 07.07.2016 of the petitioner as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and rules framed there under and offends articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently ,set-astele, the undated notice of the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to stop the petitioner's building construction in 3rd floor in accordance with permission, plastering of walls, plumbing work and electrical works to his building in Plot No: 26 of Sy.No: 314/3B1 in Ward No: 23, Amaravathi Nagar, M.R.Palli, Tirupathi Corporation Limits, Chittoor District and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case…”

2. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned notice vide U.C.B.A.No.114/2014/G3 without considering the representation dated 07.07.2016 submitted by the petitioner wherein the petitioner has expressed his grievance and requested the respondent No.2 to drop the notices issued on him and that he is ready to pay the penalized amounts if any deviation is found.

3. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 19.07.2016, this Court has passed the following interim order:

“…Since the petitioner’s grievance is that impugned notice has been served after the date fixed for hearing by the Commissioner of 2^nd respondent –Corporation, there shall be interim suspension for a period of three weeks.

XXX The 2^nd respondent shall inform a fresh date of hearing to the petitioner within two weeks from today. Thereafter, the petitioner shall appear and make his submission in writing or orally before 2^nd respondent on a date fixed by 2^nd respondent . Thereafter, 2^nd respondent shall pass a reasoned order after hearing both the petitioner and Sri Keerthi Kiran Kota.”

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation.

5. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of instructions of the Deputy City Planner, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, wherein it is admitted that the petitioner has constructed the building in deviation to the approved plan, but, however, on an application submitted by the petitioner seeking regularization, the petitioner’s constructions were regularized under building penalization scheme vide BPS 2019/TIR/MO/23/09905, dated 27.01.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner was also issued occupancy certificate.

6. In view of the fact that the constructions made by the petitioner in the subject land were regularized under building penalization scheme vide BPS 2019/TIR/MO/23/09905, dated 27.01.2020 and keeping in view that the petitioner is in occupation of the said building even as on today, this Court is of the opinion that no further orders would be necessary in the present writ petition.

7. In view of the same, this writ petition is closed. There sh