THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19011 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioners are the owners of premises bearing Door No.38-37-88/1 of Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. There existed some dispute as to their right to access to the main road. Stating that there existed 30 feet road abutting their plot and that the 2nd respondent and two others are interfering with the same, the petitioners filed O.S.No.2396 of 2002 in the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for the relief of perpetual injunction. An order of temporary injunction was granted by the trial Court on 25.11.2002. The same was affirmed by the Court of VI Additional District Judge in C.M.A.No.92 of 2002. Enclosing the copies of the orders in the proceedings referred to above and other documents, the petitioners submitted an application before the Municipal Cooptation, 1st respondent herein with a prayer to accord permission to construct. Permission was accorded on 17.04.2003. On the basis of the permission, the petitioners made construction. The 2nd respondent submitted a complaint before the 1st respondent stating that the petitioners misrepresented the facts by showing his land as 30 feet road and obtained permission to construct. The 1st respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioners directing them to explain as to why the permission be not cancelled. The petitioners replied to the same. Taking the same into account, the 1st respondent made an endorsement dated 13.08,2007 revoking the permission accorded to the petitioners. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioners contend that they did not make any misrepresentation and that the orders passed by the civil Courts were in fact filed along with the application. Separate counter affidavits are filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. They support the impugned order by stating that but for the misrepresentation made by the petitioners, the permission would not have been accorded. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. The petitioners categorically assert that the orders passed by the Courts of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge and VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam were enclosed to the application and only on a consideration of the same that the permission was accorded. The Corporation is not able to state about the nature of misrepresentation. Further, the suit filed by the petitioners was decreed and the appeal preferred by the 2nd respondent and others is pending. The petitioners have already constructed a building in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Once the construction is made, the plan virtually looses its significance. The question as to whether the place, which was shown by the petitioners as lane, is a private property of the 2nd respondent or is a public lane is to be decided by the appellate Court, in which the appeal against the decree in O.S.No.2396 of 2002 is pending. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is made clear that the rights of the petitioners on the one hand and the 2nd respondent on the other vis-à-vis the place shown as lane abutting the plot of the petitioners depends upon the outcome of the appeal filed against the decree in O.S.No.2396 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 01.06.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19011 OF 2007 Date: 01.06.2010 JSU