THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.23780 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Municipality in issuing the proceedings vide R.C.No.194/2009/G1, dated 15.09.2010, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the said proceedings. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present case may be stated as under: The petitioner is a landless poor person. The then Mandal Revenue Officer, Palamaner with the approval of the District Collector, granted a house site patta to him on 02.06.1994 to an extent of one cent of land in Palamaner, Chittoor District. He constructed a hut in the said land and fulfilled the condition of assignment. Electricity connection was also given to his hut in the year 2003. While so, on 18.04.2008, he was appointed as Village Revenue Officer. Since commercial buildings had come up in the said area, in 2006 he had applied for the construction of RCC building in the said site duly enclosing the copy of house site patta granted in his favour. The respondent Municipality vide proceedings dated 21.12.2006 approved for construction of building meant for commercial use by the petitioner in the said site. However, due to insufficient funds, he could not construct the building and the permission lapsed. Thereafter on 24.12.2009, he once again applied for permission to construct a building meant for commercial use in the said site, by paying requisite fee and enclosing necessary documents. The respondent Municipality by proceedings dated 06.01.2010 sanctioned permission for construction of commercial building. Hence, he shifted to rented premises, removed the hut and commenced construction of the building on the said site. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 15.09.2010 cancelling the permission granted to him on 06.10.2010. Further, the impugned proceedings refer to a complaint made by the second respondent over telephone stating that he (petitioner) is constructing a commercial complex on the basis of patta granted for residential house and occupying a drainage channel adjacent to the site. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the petition averments and stating that there is no hut or any structure existing in the site in question; that no door number was allotted to the site of the petitioner by the respondent Municipality; that on receiving a complaint over phone from the second respondent stating that the petitioner is constructing the building in violation of patta granted in his favour, they have verified the records and found that the patta issued in favour of the petitioner was to construct a residential building, whereas the petitioner erroneously obtained permission for construction of a commercial building; that he also discussed with the Revenue Authorities and noticed that the patta issued in favour of the petitioner is only for residential purpose; that the petitioner suppressed the said fact and obtained permission for commercial building and that even though they have orally instructed the petitioner not to commence the work, he disobeyed the same and commenced the construction work and therefore, impugned proceedings were issued cancelling the building permission for commercial purpose. It is further stated that the Government issued pattas to the landless poor persons to construct residential houses but not to construct commercial complexes or buildings; that even though the petitioner obtained patta in the year 1994, he had not resided in the land in question and that since the petitioner had converted the said plot into commercial one, he is not eligible to hold the patta also and therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The second respondent also filed a counter affidavit stating the father of the petitioner, who was working as V.A.O, Jellipeta Village got assignment of the house site in favour of the petitioner in Survey No.308/9 in an extent of Ac.0.01 cent situated in the heart of Palamaner Town, which is adjacent to National High Way and has also encroached the site in Survey No.350/2 to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents even without getting patta and erected basement on the said site; that the father of the petitioner has got assignment of the agricultural lands in favour of his mother and son at Jallipeta Village, but based on the complaints lodged by him (second respondent) on 06.10.1989 and 04.06.1999, the Revenue Divisional Officer had cancelled the said assignment and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- against the father of the petitioner; that even though the Government servants are not entitled to house site pattas, knowing the same well, the petitioner’s father had managed the then Mandal Revenue Officer and got assigned the house site patta in favour of the petitioner, who was a minor then; that when the petitioner started the work, he brought the same to the notice of the first respondent, and the first respondent directed the petitioner not to proceed with the construction and cancelled the permission granted to him; that the neighbours of the petitioner have also filed representations before the Revenue authorities complaining against the petitioner in proceeding with the construction and also filed a suit in O.S.No.174 of 2010 on 09.09.2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner and notice was ordered in I.A.No.782 of 2010; that during Dasara Holidays, the petitioner dumped more construction material with an intention to proceed with the construction, and hence, the plaintiffs therein filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and as per the direction of the Court below, the Advocate Commissioner submitted his report stating that the petitioner had dug the pits and damaged the septic tank of the his neighbours; that on such report, the Civil Court by order dated 15.09.2010 directed to maintain status quo and posted the matter to 05.10.2010; that thereafter, the Tahsildar, Palamaner has sent the V.R.O to visit the suit locality and to submit a report; that on the report of the V.R.O, the Tahsildar put up a sign board in the suit locality stating that the said site is taken over and is in dispute and the tresspassers would be prosecuted and that thereafter, no construction work has been taken up by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner obtained sanction plan for construction of a commercial building, but that order was cancelled unilaterally without giving any notice to the petitioner and thereby the respondent Municipality has violated the principles of natural justice, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned proceedings. 6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that that the patta was granted for residential house; that suppressing the material fact, the petitioner obtained a sanctioned plan for construction of a commercial building, and therefore, the first respondent rightly cancelled the sanction plan. 7. Learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the petitioner has no right to make any construction of building for commercial use because patta was given only for the purpose of constructing a residential house. 8. The petitioner was granted house site patta on 02.06.1994 to an extent of one cent of land in Palamaner Town, Chittoor District. According to the petitioner, he raised a hut by complying with the conditions of patta. Electricity connection was also given to the said hut in the year 2003 and he is paying the electricity bills. Thereafter, he applied for construction of building for commercial purpose. Accordingly, the Municipality granted permission for construction of commercial building vide proceedings dated 21.12.2006. As the petitioner did not construct the building due to financial problems, the permission lapsed. Thereafter on 24.12.2009, the petitioner once again applied for permission for construction of commercial building, and the same was granted to him vide proceedings dated 06.01.2010. Pursuant to the said permission, the petitioner started construction and in the meanwhile, the respondent Municipality issued the impugned proceedings. 9. As can be see from the impugned proceedings dated 15.09.2010, based on the information given by the second respondent, the plan sanctioned in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. No doubt the impugned order shows that the second respondent gave a telephonic message with regard to the construction made by the petitioner, but the first respondent Municipality has verified and found that the petitioner obtained plan for construction of commercial building, though the site in question was assigned to him for residential purpose. However, it also discloses that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to submit his explanation. 10. In view of the fact that the right of the petitioner is being affected in cancelling the sanctioned plan, the first respondent Municipality ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner, and so, it violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 15.09.2010 shall be treated as a show cause notice said to have been given by the respondent Municipality and the petitioner is directed to give an explanation within a period of three weeks from today and after receipt of such explanation, the first respondent shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such explanation from the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not make any construction till a decision that may be taken by the respondent Municipality. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C. BHANU, J Date: 02.12.2011 va