IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.24513 of 2009 BETWEEN: Dr Sarabu Ram Gopal and another ….PETITIONER(S) and The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar. …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.24513 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioners are spouses and medical practitioners. They purchased Plot No.32/B and an abutting plot totaling to 1873 square yards, out of Sy.No.1103, at Mukrampura of Karimnagar town, under different sale deeds. They submitted an application to the erstwhile Municipality, Karimnagar, to accord permission to construct a building. Permission was accorded in 2005. The petitioners, however, could not proceed with the construction and the permission lapsed. In the meanwhile, the Municipality was upgraded as Corporation. Fresh application was made to the Corporation, the 1st respondent. The application was returned unapproved vide notice Roc.No.2259/G1/2009 dated 28.07.2009 by the 1st respondent. The petitioners and certain others were required to settle the ownership dispute over the site under reference, in the court of law and resubmit the application thereafter. Reference was made to a complaint said to have been filed by the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioners are trying to encroach upon his land and the 30' wide road; and that there are civil disputes. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. The petitioners purchased Plot No.32/B and another big plot on the eastern side i.e. the land of Sri Prakash Rao through respective sale deeds. Thereafter, they submitted an application for grant of permission to construct a building to the Municipality. Permission was accorded to the petitioners for construction of a building, on 08.04.2005, and, since the construction was not made within three years, it lapsed. Obviously because the Municipality was upgraded as Municipal Corporation, a fresh application was filed, instead of seeking renewal of the permission. For all practical purposes the present application is the one for renewal. The plan, and other details are identical. In the impugned notice, the 1st respondent referred to a road and a complaint said to have been submitted by the 2nd respondent. The view taken by the 1st respondent as to the existence of a road, on the western side of the plot of the petitioners, is totally untenable. From a map which is part of a decree in O.S.No.426 of 1981 to which the vendor of the petitioners is a party, it is evident that between the said road and plot of the petitioner, there is Plot No.32/A. Therefore, the question of petitioner leaving any land for the road or his encroaching into the road does not arise. The second objection is based upon a complaint. Except making any general and vague allegations, the 2nd respondent did not specify as to how the permission cannot be granted to the petitioners. The 2nd respondent made a deliberate misrepresentation stating that a case is pending. To a specific question as to whether any civil suit or other case is pending, it is stated that no such proceedings were instituted. Without even verifying the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the 2nd respondent in his complaint, the 1st respondent has simply returned the application filed by the petitioners on the basis of the complaint of the 2nd respondent. Such an approach on the part of a statutory body like Municipal Corporation cannot be countenanced. When the Municipality accorded the permission earlier, there is no reason why the permission cannot be granted by its successor i.e. Municipal Corporation, particularly when no civil proceedings have been instituted, in the interregnum. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to pass orders afresh in the light of the observations made above within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that the sanction, if accorded, shall be accorded only in respect of the land for which the petitioners hold title i.e. Plot No.32/B and the land purchased from Sri Prakash Rao. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 25th November 2009 CVRK