HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.10524 of 2004 Between: M/s.Sarada Builders, Mangalagiri Road, Guntur. ……….Petitioner and Municipal Corporation, Guntur and another. ………..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.10524 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the endorsement made by the 1st respondent-Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, dated 15- 06-2004, directing the petitioner not to go on with the constructions until his title is proved. 2. The endorsement in the impugned proceedings reads as under: “With reference to the first above cited, the Municipal Corporation, Guntur, accorded approval in your favour vide B.A.No.8/04/G1, dated 01-03-2004, for the construction of commercial complex. From the representation, it appears that there is site dispute in the Court of Law. Hence, you are requested not to go with construction until the title is proved and also further orders.” 3. 2nd respondent is the owner of a piece of land admeasuring 1506.95 square yards situated in Becker Compound in Brodiepet, Guntur. That said land was leased in favour of petitioner under a registered lease deed, which permits to make constructions. Based on such registered lease deed, the petitioner applied for grant of permission to raise construction in the land in question and the same was approved in favour of the petitioner vide B.A.No.8/2004/G1, dated 01-03-2004, for construction of commercial complex. It appears that the residents of the 2nd respondent-Church made a representation stating that there is a dispute in the Court of Law with regard to the said property. Therefore, the impugned endorsement was made on the representation directing the petitioner not to go with constructions until his title dispute is settled in the Court of Law. 4. On 25-06-2004, this Court, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim orders directing the 1st respondent not to interfere with the construction being made by the petitioner, pursuant to the permission granted in proceedings dated 01-03-2004. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner completed the construction in accordance with sanctioned plan. He further submits that there are no reasons to justify the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings. When the constructions were already made as per the sanctioned plan, the proceedings, issued by the 1st respondent, relying on the ground that the representation was made by the respondent No.2 disputing the title, are not justifiable. 6. Conversely, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Commissioner submits that the 1st respondent was not aware of the pendency of disputes when the permission was granted. 7. If the petitioner has suppressed any material facts, it is left open to 1st respondent to cancel the permission granted to the petitioner by following the due procedure, as contemplated under law. But, the action of the 1st respondent in making the impugned endorsement directing the petitioner not to go for any construction, without initiating any proceedings for cancellation of grant of permission, merely based on the representation submitted by the 2nd respondent indicating that there is a dispute with regard to the title in the Court of Law, is not justifiable. Except referring to the representation of the 2nd respondent, no other indication regarding the nature of dispute is made, which is stated to be pending in the Court of Law. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned endorsement dated 15- 06-2004 issued by respondent No.1 is not valid in law, and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the endorsement of the 1st respondent-Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, dated 15-06-2004, is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 3rd August 2009 KVR