HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5039 of 2007 ORDER: The 3rd petitioner is the owner of plot No.21 admeasuring 300 square yards, carved out of land in survey Nos.50, 51, 53, 54 and 55 of Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Her immediate neighbouring plot is Plot No.20 admeasuring 340 square yards, owned by one P.V. Subba Rao. Out of that, he is said to have gifted 84 square yards to his son, by name, Shanker. The 3rd petitioner, Subba Rao and his son Shanker submitted application to the Municipal Corporation to accord permission to construct upon an extent of 586 square yards, comprising of 300 square yards of the 3rd respondent, 250 square yards of Subba Rao and 36 square yards owned by Shanker. Permission was accorded on 25-04-2005. It is stated that the construction was completed in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Petitioners 1 and 2 are said to have purchased two flats in the building so constructed. 2. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, 1st respondent herein, issued show cause notice, dated 12-11-2006, to the applicants, the Architect and the Structural Engineer, directing them to explain as to why the permit, dated 25-04-2005, be not cancelled. It was alleged that the permission was obtained on the basis of No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Collector on 25-01-2005 in the name of Subba Rao and that the said individual died on 19-01-2004 itself. Shanker, son of Subba Rao submitted an explanation on 02-12-2006. He stated that when the permission was made ready, he made certain endorsements in the name of his father with a view to avoid delay in construction. The explanation did not weigh with the respondents and through order, dated 12-02-2007, they have cancelled the construction permission. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. The owners of three different plots have come together and thought of obtaining a common permission to construct a building upon a larger extent. Permission was accorded and the building was constructed. The only basis for the respondents to initiate proceedings for the cancellation of permission is that NOC was obtained in the name of a dead person. 5. The authority, who issued the NOC, did not raise any objection even at a later stage. It is not in dispute that the application, seeking NOC, was submitted by Subba Rao during his life time. It took quite some time for the concerned authorities to process the file. When it became necessary to file certain declarations, the son of Subba Rao, who too owned a small plot of land, has chosen to file them, may be, in the name of his father in his anxiety to obtain the NOC at a later date. The steps taken by Shanker are, no doubt, contrary to law. However, if one takes into account, the fact that he is none other than the son of original applicant and that there was no rival claims, and was himself, an applicant, the matter need not be taken so seriously. Further, it is not a case, where the plot of land owned by Subba Rao alone was involved. As observed earlier, three individuals have come together and a permit was accorded for a land covering as many as three plots. For the small irregularity that has taken place in respect of a part of it, the permission for the entire property cannot be cancelled, that too, after the building was constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan. 3. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J March 17, 2011. KTL