IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.16806 of 2010 Between: Chittaturu Kastooramma and another. … Petitioners And Venkatagiri Municipality, reptd., by its Commissioner, Venkatagiri, SPSR Nellore District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.Ravindra. Counsel for the respondent: Sri S.Nageswara Reddy. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside endorsement ROC No.299/09/A1, dated 2-1- 2010, of the respondent-Venkatagiri Municipality, whereby the building permission granted in the name of petitioner No.1 was cancelled. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent. The facts which are not in dispute are that petitioner No.1 has applied to the respondent for sanction of building permission in premises bearing door No.17/219 comprised in Survey No.279 of Chakalipet, East Street, Venkatagiri, and the same was sanctioned on 6-1-2009. Evidently, on 1-1-2010 a representation was made by one Sri Ganesh Ramakrishna Bhaktamandali, whereupon the respondent has issued the impugned proceedings, whereby the permission granted earlier in favour of petitioner No.1 was cancelled on two grounds, viz., (1) Even though the building permission was granted on 6- 1-2009, construction was not commenced so far; and (2) the gift deed executed by petitioner No.2 in favour of petitioner No.1, who is no other than his wife, was cancelled on 26-6-2009. I have carefully considered the reasons assigned by the respondent in the impugned order. As regards the first reason, Condition No.12 of the building permission, dated 6-1-2009, stipulates that the validity of the permission is for three years; and that if the construction is not completed within the said period, the applicant shall obtain fresh permission. From the dates referred to above it is evident that by the time the impugned proceedings were issued, not even one year had expired from the time of grant of permission. Therefore, non-commencement of construction within the said period does not constitute a ground for cancellation of the building permission. As regards the second ground, the same is equally untenable because no legal provision is cited by the respondent which empowers it to cancel the building permission once granted on the ground that the person, in whose favour the permission is granted, is divested of the title over the property. Even at the hearing the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent failed to point out any such provision either under the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short “the Act”) or any other statutory enactment. Indeed, the respondent has not relied upon any provision under the Act vesting power in it to cancel the building permission once granted on any ground, much less on the ground that petitioner No.1 has lost her title. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is quashed. While computing the period of three years as stipulated in Condition No.12 of the building permission, the period between 2-1-2010 and the date of disposal of this Writ Petition shall be excluded. As a sequel, WPMP No.21179 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:2-8-2011 MNR