THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7639 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of a small plot of land in premises bearing No.1-6-63 (P) in Survey No.76 of Medak Revenue Village and Town. He submitted an application to Medak Municipality, respondent No.1 herein, seeking permission to construct a building upon the land. Permission was accorded on 31.08.2005. On receiving a complaint from some private individuals as well as revenue officials to the effect that the petitioner is making construction upon the land in Survey Nos.77/1 and 78/1, respondent No.1 issued notice/intimation, dated 03.04.2006, requiring the petitioner to stop the construction till the dispute as to the identity of the land is resolved. Thereafter, the petitioner received an order, dated 10.04.2006, through which respondent No.1 cancelled the construction permission. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without issuing any show cause notice. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is stated that a notice requiring the petitioner to explain within three days as to why the construction permission be not cancelled was issued and since there was no response to it, the impugned order was passed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the impleaded party. It appears, there is some dispute as to the identity of the land on which the petitioner started construction. While according to him, he owns it, respondent Nos.1 to 3 state that though permission was obtained in respect of a plot in Survey No.76, the construction is being made on the land in Survey Nos.77/1 and 78/1. Taking note of the developments that have taken place after the permission is accorded, respondent No.1 initially issued notice/intimation, dated 03.04.2006, and thereafter, passed the impugned order, dated 10.04.2006. Respondent No.1 is vested with the power to cancel or revoke permission in case it emerges that there is any legal or factual defect in the permission accorded by it. However, it is under obligation to issue notice to the affected parties before the permission is cancelled. The petitioner categorically urged that except the intimation, dated 03.04.2006, he did not receive any show cause notice. Though this averment of the petitioner is contradicted and denied by respondent No.1, the counter-affidavit is silent as to the date of show cause notice, much less the date on which it was served upon the petitioner. Therefore, a serious defect exists which would vitiate the impugned order. Even now, respondent No.1 can issue show cause notice and the interests of the parties can be protected by directing that the petitioner shall not make any construction. At the same time, respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot be permitted to demolish the structures, which have already been made. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to respondent No.1 to issue show cause notice to the petitioner, within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, requiring him to explain as to why permission accorded to him be not cancelled, duly stipulating the reasons therefor. It shall be open to the petitioner to submit his explanation and take steps to establish the identity of the land owned by him. Respondent No.1 shall pass orders within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the explanation from the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not make any construction. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 31.05.2010. kdl