THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.8223 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri K. Sreenivas, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and, at their request, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is a resident of U.S.A. and is represented by her father, a retired employee, who has been authorized by her to take care of the plot bearing No.93 in Sy. No.44 situated at Mansoorabad village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner questions the order dated 23.03.2010, suspending the building construction permission granted earlier in proceedings dated 04.12.2008, which the petitioner claims to have come to know only on a notice being served on 06.04.2010 through courier. The petitioner claims to have purchased plot No.93 admeasuring 300 square yards in Sy. No.44 (part) Ward No.3, Block No.9, Mansoorabad, Saroornagar Mandal, by way of registered sale deed bearing No.2134/2000 dated 25.05.2000, from its original owner and to have obtained possession. Reference is made to another plot which is not the subject matter of this Writ Petition. The petitioner submitted an application for regularization of the unapproved lay out, under the scheme of regularization in G.O.Ms. No.902 dated 31.12.2007 and G.O.Ms. No.113 dated 31.01.2008, and the Commissioner, G.H.M.C. issued order dated 13.10.2008 regularising the said plot duly enclosing the plan showing the boundaries of the regulated lay-outs. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained permission for construction of a house vide proceedings dated 04.12.2008. The petitioner would contend that the impugned show cause notice dated 04.12.2008, which was served only on 06.04.2010, was not preceded by any show cause notice and that she was not given an opportunity of being heard. Under the impugned proceedings dated 23.03.2010, the petitioner was informed that the permission granted, vide proceedings dated 04.12.2008, was being suspended pending further orders to enable the applicants to prove their title over the lands in question by obtaining necessary permission from the competent authorities. Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, on instructions, would fairly state that the impugned proceedings were not preceded by any notice to the petitioner and that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard before the impugned order was passed. I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to quash the impugned order for violation of principles of natural justice. This order shall not preclude the respondents from issuing a notice both to the petitioner and to the 2nd respondent, give them both an opportunity of being heard and, thereafter, take action in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Date: 23.04.2010 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR