THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NOs.7634 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. G. Jhansi, Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the interlocutory stage. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent – Corporation in stopping construction at D.No.11-62-152 and 153 by the side of Anjaneya Vilas, Saraikhana street, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation though permission was granted earlier by the respondent – Corporation on 26.3.2010. It is petitioner’s case that, though the said permission has not been cancelled and continues to remain in force, the officials of the respondent – Corporation had come to the property on 3.4.2010 at 9.00 p.m; had directed the workers to stop construction; and had informed them that if they failed to do so the subject property would be seized. Smt. G. Jhansi, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation, would submit that there is a title dispute over the land in question, and that the construction being undertaken is in deviation of the sanctioned plan. She would submit that several complaints were received both with regards the petitioner’s title over the land in question, and regarding the illegal construction resorted to by them. Learned Standing Counsel would fairly state that the Corporation has not put the petitioner on notice in this regard. As long as the permission granted to the petitioner continues to remain in force, the petitioner is entitled to make construction in accordance with the permission so granted. If the Corporation intends either to cancel the permission granted earlier, or if it is of the view that the construction being undertaken is not in accordance with the permission granted, the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, as extended to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, would require the petitioner to be put on notice, being given an opportunity of being heard and, only thereafter, for action to be taken against him in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws made thereunder. Leaving it open to the respondent, if they so choose, to initiate action, for cancellation of permission or for deviation in construction, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations and Byelaws made thereunder, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents not to interfere with the construction being undertaken by the petitioner as long the said permission continues to remain in force. The petitioner shall ensure that the construction undertaken is strictly in accordance with the permission granted by the Corporation. No costs. __________ 22-4-2010 asp