IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10153 of 2008 Between: Indira Enterpirses, rep by its Managing Partner, Nittala Daniel, S/o N.V. Federeick, R/o Ankammanagar, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Asn.II(1) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur 3 Guntur Municipal Corporation, repby its Commissioner, Guntur. 4 The Executive of AELC, Becker Compound, Brodipet, Guntur, repby its Chairman. 5 Sri G.I. Dayardhana Rao R/o MIG-60 A.P. HB. Colony, Guntur. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declrignthe action of the respondents in not allowing the petitisoner to construct further construction of the commercial complex in pursuance of the permission granted by the 3rd respondent herein is arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional and the action of the revenueauthorities in referring matter is also unreasonable and without jurisdiction and consequently directthe respondents to permit the petitioner to proceed further in constructing the commercial complex in an extent of 836.20 sq. mts, in T.S. No. 84, Block No.2, Ward No.2, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.ELISHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10153 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by Indira Enterprises represented by its Managing Partner Nittala Danniel assailing the notice issued under Section 450 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 by the Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation-3rd respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner as set out in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition is:- The petitioner ﬁrm is registered under Indian Partnership Act, 1932 on 23-1-1999. The petitioner ﬁrm took 500 square yards in T.S.No. 84, Block No.2, Ward No.2, Beckers Compound, Brodipet Guntur on lease for a period of 49 years i.e. from 23-1-1994 to 23-1-2043. An agreement was executed by the 4th respondent to that eﬀect in favour of the petitioner on 23-1-1994. The petitioner ﬁrm paid an amount of Rs. 60,000/- as an advance. When the 4th respondent refused to execute the registered lease deed, a suit being O.S.No. 48 of 1999, on the ﬁle of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, came to be ﬁled. The suit ended in decree on 7-9-1999. Despite decree being granted by the Civil Court, 4th respondent has not come forward to execute a registered sale deed. Therefore the petitioner ﬁrm ﬁled E.P.No. 38 of 2008 and obtained registered lease deed through process of Court on 2- 7-2000. The 4th respondent agreed to let out another extent of 500 square yards in the year 1994. 4th respondent also executed a registered lease deed after receiving consideration. The petitioner ﬁrm after obtaining lease deeds made an application to the Government for conversion of the land use. The Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 154 M.A. ,dated 13-4-2004 wherein use of the land has been converted to commercial use to an extent of 836.20 square meters out of 1000 square yards. The petitioner ﬁrm made an application to the Municipal Corporation seeking permission for a commercial complex. The Municipal Corporation, Guntur-3rd respondent and received after receiving the necessary amounts towards betterment and developing charges and accorded permission on 28-6-2005 vide Proceedings BA No. 102/200/GI. Thereafter, the 5th respondent made a representation to the Joint Collector complaining that the transaction between the petitioner and the 4th respondent are not legal. The Joint Collector, issued a notices on 6-11- 2007, 22-11-2007 and 26-11-2007 and conducted enquiry. The petitioner ﬁrm submitted explanation and produced relevant document relating to lease agreement. 3rd Respondent Corporation issued notice dated 13-7-2007 as to why building permission cannot be cancelled/revoked. The petitioner ﬁrm submitted explanation to the show cause notice. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Respondents 4 and 5 ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. Respondent No.4 supported the claim of the petitioner and therefore, the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent needs no reference. 5. Notice before admission has been ordered on 1-5-2008. While ordering notice, the petitioner has been permitted to carry on construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Respondents 4 and 5 received notice and entered appearance. 6. 5th respondent ﬁled counter aﬃdavit disputing the claim of the petitioner over 1000 square yards of land in T.S.No. 84, Block No.2, Ward No.2 Beckers Compound, Brodipet, Guntur. Various disputes between the parties have been referred in the counter affidavit. Paras 4 and 5 of the counter aﬃdavit need to be noted and it is thus: “4. Further, it is false to state that the Respondent NO.4 gave deaf ear to register the lease deed. The petitioner approached the Court of law for Registration in O.S.No. 48/199 on the ﬁle of Additional r. Judge for speciﬁc performance of the lease agreement on 23-1-1994 and the same was decreed on 7- 9-1999 and that the petitioner ﬁled EP No. 38/2008 against the 4th respondent and thereafter the court registered the lease deed on 25-7-2000. The action of the petitioner in ﬁling the suit was fraudulent as he misrepresented to the Court that the 4th respondent never executed lease deed and obtained a decree clandestinely and got executed the lease deed. As a matter of fact the land in question was in dispute before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in C.M.A.No. 3739 of 2000. As such the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. This writ should be dismissed in limini. 5. In reply to para 4 I submit that it is false to state that the petitioner requested the 4th respondent in the year 1994 to lease out land to an extent of 500 square yards. It is also false to state that the land is behind the land leased earlier and it is also false to state that the Executive Council of the 4th respondent discussed about the matter and agreed to lease it out to the petitioner. The so called unanimous resolution LCM 344 dated 17/6/1996 by the 4th Respondent organization is false, fabricated. Further the demanded money of Rs. 50000/- towards advance by Respondent NO.4 which was claimed to have been paid by cheque No. 246197 is not credited to the account of the 4th Respondent. The petitioner falsely on issuing the cheque stage managed to get the lease deed executed illegally unlawfully for additional 500 square yards sin T.S.No. 84, Block No.2 at Becker Compound Brodipet, Guntur for a period of 49 years with eﬀect from 21-6-2000 to 21-6-1949. The claim that it was recorded in the minutes of the executive council Vide LCM No. 344 dated 17-6-1996 is false, created and be put to strict proof. The resolution that was passed in 1996 and not been executed till 2000 is barred by limitation. The person who executed the lease deed Rev. Y.M.L. Sastry was not the elected President at any point of time”. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and learned counsel appearing for Respondent NO.5. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having obtained lease of the properties approached 3rd respondent and there upon 3rd respondent accorded building permission. He further submits that the petitioner ﬁrm submitted explanation to the show cause notice, but the 3rd respondent did not pass any orders pursuant to the show cause notice. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent seriously disputed the claim of the petitioner over the property. A fact remains that the petitioner submitted explanation to the show cause notice issued under Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Thereafter no order seems to have been passed by the 3rd respondent. 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued under Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and pass appropriate orders after putting on notice to all the aﬀected parties within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to cots. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 13th October, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10153 OF 2008 13th October, 2008.