THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.27305 OF 2011 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the report of the 2nd respondent dated 15.9.2011 as illegal and arbitrary as it was passed without notice to the petitioner, and without conducting fair enquiry. A consequential direction is sought to direct the respondents not to rely upon the report of the 2nd respondent, in proceedings dated 15.9.2011, for taking any action against the petitioner. It is the petitioner’s case that he had purchased Ac.23.25 cents of land in Sy.No.781/A2/2A&1A under registered documents of sale from his vendor; the property he purchased had houses therein; his vendor had obtained pattas for his land; the property was conveyed to the petitioner; consequently he became the absolute owner; and he is in possession of the house property. The petitioner would submit that the 8th respondent was a chronic litigant. At the instance of local politicians, who were supported by his vendor, the 8th respondent raised hue and cry regarding construction of apartments, as both the vendor and the 8th respondent were, allegedly, not compensated; the 8th respondent made an application to respondents 2 and 3 on 10.6.2011 and, on the specious plea that the representation was not considered, he had filed W.P.No.17212 of 2011 which was eventually withdrawn on 23.9.2011. The petitioner would submit that he had purchased the house property; later, on the permission obtained by his vendor from the Municipal Corporation, he had constructed apartments and his application under the Building Penalization Scheme (BPS) was still pending. It is the petitioner’s grievance that, though this Court did not call for any report in W.P.No.17212 of 2011, a report was submitted by the 2nd respondent dated 15.9.2011 wherein serious allegations were levelled against him; and as the said report was prepared without putting him on notice and without giving him an opportunity of being heard, it is illegal, and must be declared as such. The report dated 15.9.2011, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, is a report of the Revenue Divisional Officer relating to construction of 32 flats in a four storeyed building located in Kurnool. According to the report, the said land in Sy.No.781/A2 is K.C. Canal poramboke land; the petitioner had constructed apartments within 20 meters from the lug or 10 meters from the toe line of the canal, and the Tahsildar in his letters dated 3.9.2011 and 13.9.2011 had stated that no house site pattas had been given in favour of Sri Rasool Khan and others (persons from whom the petitioner is said to have purchased the land). According to the report the petitioner and others had prepared fake documents with the intention to obtain government lands illegally; they had submitted fake documents to the Municipal authorities for grant of building permission and BPS; they had suppressed facts; and they had cheated government authorities by submitting fake documents with the intention to get wrongful gain. Reference is made to W.P. No.8683 of 2011 filed before this Court, as also to the fact that this Court had disposed of the said Writ Petition by order dated 11.7.2011 directing the Municipal Commissioner to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the petitioner’s representation dated 21.3.2011 and, till such time, not to demolish the structures in question. According to the report, the District Collector, Kurnool had asked the 2nd respondent to call upon the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to cancel approval of the constructed building on grounds of misrepresentation, fabricated documents etc, and to demolish the entire apartment as the land belonged to the Irrigation Department; he had also requested the 2nd respondent to direct the Superintending Engineer to address a letter to the Sub Registrar under Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Rules, made under the Registration Act, 1908, for cancellation of the registered sale deeds, and had directed the Tahsildar to file a criminal complaint against the petitioner for creation of forged documents. All that has been stated in the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer is that the District Collector had requested the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to cancel the approval i.e., the building construction plan on the ground of misrepresentation, submission of fabricated documents etc., to direct the Superintending Engineer to address a letter to the Joint Sub-Registrar for cancellation of registration of the earlier sale deeds; and to direct the Tahsildar to file a criminal complaint against the culprits for creation of forged documents. The Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, and the rules and bye-laws made thereunder, require the person, in whose favour building plans have been approved, to be put on notice before its cancellation. The petitioner’s application under BPS is also required in law to be considered on its merits. Likewise, the only mode in which a sale deed can be cancelled is by filing a civil suit by a competent Civil Court. With regards the criminal complaint directed to be lodged against the petitioner, the question of the accused being heard before a criminal complaint is lodged is unknown to law. The report, by itself, is merely a memorandum for action to be taken against the petitioner for his alleged illegal activities both regarding the land in his possession and the building constructed thereupon. It is not even the petitioner’s case that any action has been initiated against him either by the Municipal Commissioner or the Sub-Registrar or the police officials much less that any action has been taken at the dictates of the 1st and 2nd respondents. If any action is taken by the Municipal Commissioner or the Sub-Registrar or the Police officials, influenced solely by the impugned report, it is always open to the petitioner to question the same on all such grounds as are available to him in law including that the action taken is at the behest of respondents 1 and 2 or that it is based on extraneous considerations. The report dated 15.09.2011 has, by itself, not resulted in any civil consequences to the petitioner. The Writ Petition as filed is premature and, as at present, is misconceived. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if he so aggrieved, to question the action, if any, take by the Municipal Commissioner or the Sub- Registrar or the Police officials on the basis of the report of the 2nd respondent, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Date: 29.09.2011 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR