PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the petitioner present.  Arguments heard.  M/s Venkateswara Housing Pvt. Ltd. constructed a multi storyed building

complex, in the year 1996. It is not in dispute that it is having property and the property was assessed for municipal tax for five assessments.  The municipal tax was collected.  On 30.07.1998, the Government introduced a Scheme “Building Regularization Scheme/BRS” for correcting the deviation made against the sanctioned plan  and unauthorized constructions by way of penal amounts.  The complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 15,75,000/- on 02.06.2003 under the said scheme for regularization of the deviation in construction of building relating to the said five assessment numbers. 

2.      However, the Guntur Municipal Corporation-the OP collected penal charges and came to the conclusion that the complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 29,34,338/-  as shown in Ex.B4 and sent demand notices Ex.A4 to A8 to the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 13,59,338/- .  The complainant did not pay the said amount.

3.      In the meantime, the BRS Scheme was struck down by the Hon’ble High Court.  Consequently, the further proceedings could not be effected in respect of the complainant’s property.

4.      Government of A.P. passed Act 6 of 2003 named A.P. Regularisation of Unauthorised Constructions in the Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Urban Development Authority Act, 2003 and the same was published in the A.P. Gazette dated 15.04.2003 , vide Ex.B6.  Thereafter, the Govt. of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No. 901 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M1) Department making rules known as “The Andhra Pradesh Regularisation and Penalisation of unauthorisedly constructed building and buildings constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan Rules, 2007” vide Ex.B16.  Clarification was made in Ex.B15.  Since the appellant did not pay the full penalty under the BRS Scheme, therefore, his case was not considered.  It is interesting to note that the petitioner did not apply in the subsequent scheme known as BPS Scheme.  The complainant made the following prayers in the complaint, which are reproduced as here under:-

“(a) To Direct the Opposite party to issue B.R.S. Certificate under B.R.S. Scheme as per Assessment wise in favour of the Complainant by declaring that the notice dated 3.2.06 bearing No. 209/96/G3 –UC ROC No. 63/96/B.O.-III is illegal.

(b)   The consequential permanent injunction restraining the Opposite party not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Complainant’s Property or not to demolish or coercive steps against the Complainant property with regard to the Assessment bearing No.14142/B, 14142/8, 14140 and 14141/A respectively;

          (i)      Mental pain and Agony Rs. 50,000/-

          (ii)     Legal Expenses of Rs. 5,000/-

          (iii)To award compensation and damage of Rs. 1,00,000/-.”

5.      The relief under the B.R.S. Scheme cannot be granted because the same was struck down by the Hon’ble High Court. Again, we cannot pass any permanent injunction in respect of the possession of the petitioner.  This is for that this commission has got no jurisdiction.  The Commission cannot arrogate to itself those powers which it does not enjoy. The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.