THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 16690 of 2010 Dated: 14.07.2010 Between: Valluru Sambasiva Rao, Vijayawada. … Petitioner And Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada and 4 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16690 of 2010 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 in taking steps for cancellation of the plan approved vide R.C.G.7.B.A.No. 1548/2009 dated 04.02.2010 in favour of the respondents 4 and 5 is arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that the petitioner and his brother by name Venkateswara Rao are the absolute owners and possessors of Ac.1.45 cents of agricultural land in R.S.No.72/2 of Patamata Lanka and they are also possessing a right of easement to pass through the joint passage. As the respondents 4 and 5 herein raised a dispute with regard to the right of the petitioner to use the said passage, O.S.No.1126 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsiff, Vijayawada was filed for permanent injunction and the same was decreed on 10.12.1984. Though the respondents 4 and 5 filed A.S.No.10 of 1985, on the file of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, the same was dismissed and even the Second Appeal before this Court ended in dismissal by judgment dated 01.07.2008. It is alleged that suppressing the above said facts, the respondents 4 and 5 made an application before the 1st respondent for sanction of a building plan by including the joint passage in his land. The said plan was sanctioned vide proceedings dated 04.02.2010 and on the basis of the same, the respondents 4 and 5 have been proceeding with the construction. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. The material placed before this Court shows that the building permission was granted vide proceedings of the Commissioner of the 1st respondent-Corporation dated 04.02.2010. It is not disputed before this Court that under Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), the Commissioner of the Corporation is empowered to cancel the permission on the ground of material misrepresentation by the applicant. As per the said provision, at any time after permission to proceed with any building or work has been given, the Commissioner if satisfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement, may cancel such permission and any work done thereunder shall be deemed to have been done without his permission. In the light of the said provision, even assuming that the respondents 4 and 5 had obtained the building permission, suppressing the material facts, it is for the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, the petitioner is hereby granted liberty to make an appropriate application before the 1st respondent for cancellation of the permission granted in favour of the respondents 4 and 5. If any such application is made, the 1st respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 and 5 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such application from the petitioner. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ​ ____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 14.07.2010 KLP