IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.17701 of 2003 Between: 1 Dr.T.Jeevan Rao S/o.D.Muthyam Rao R/o.H.No.5070674/10, Kaleelwadi Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 2 Smt.B.Sandhya W/o.Hanumantha Rao R/o.Maddipally village, Navepet, Mandal, Nizamabad district. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Municipal Commissioner Alwal Municipality, Alwal, R.R.District. 2 M/s.Navabharata Co-opeative Housing Society Limited, rep.by its President, Sri Narasinga Rao S/o.Rama Rao, R/o.Plot No.621, Vivekandanagar, Kukatpally, R.R.District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or orders calling for the records pertaining to proceeding No.D/2020/2002, BA No.731/2002 and D/4974/2002, BA.No.336/2002 both dated 5.5.2003 respectively passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary against the Principles of natural justice and declare the action of the first respondent for revoking the building permission of the Petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and further direct the first respondent not to interfere into the peaceful construction of the respective houses as per the sanctioned plan on Plot No.50-B, 71-B and 50-A and 71-A in survey Nos.547 to 550, 552 to 572 respectively situated at under Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R.District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATASWAMY Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JCS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.17701 of 2003 O R D E R: Heard both the counsel. It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased four plots bearing Nos.50-B, 71-B, 50-A and 71-A in Sy.Nos.547 to 550, 552 to 572, admeasuring 666 sq.yards and 622 sq.yards respectively vide registered sale deeds in the year 2001, and thereafter applied for construction of houses on their respective plots and the 1st respondent Municipality accorded permission vide proceedings dated 17.12.2002. It is not in dispute that permissions were accorded vide proceedings No.D/2020/2002 & BA No.731/2002 and D/4974/2001 and BA No.336/2002 respectively on 17.12.2002. A counter has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent Municipality stating that the Panchasheel Enclave Owners Welfare Society submitted a representation stating that they have purchased certain plots from the 2nd respondent Housing Society and out of that certain plots have been converted for the purpose of community hall, school and hospital and therefore, the said plots which have been converted for the above said purpose cannot be used other than the said purpose. It is further stated that on the representation of the Welfare society it is noticed that the petitioners purchased the land earmarked for the aforementioned purpose and by misrepresenting the facts obtained permission and therefore, action has been initiated under Sec.344 of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 and issued show cause notices on 10.04.2003 as to why the permissions granted to the petitioners shall not be revoked. It is stated that the petitioners have submitted explanations/representations to the show cause notices on 02.05.2003 and without considering the said explanations/representations made, the 1st respondent Municipality passed the impugned orders revoking the permissions already granted in favour of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is not established that the plots purchased by the petitioners were already purchased by the alleged Panchasheel Enclave Owners Welfare Society and the same were converted for the purpose of Community hall, school and the hospital, and therefore, there was no any misrepresentation or suppression of facts in obtaining permissions. I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the said contention, as admittedly, no enquiry has been conducted and no finding has been recorded as to whether the plots purchased by the petitioner were already purchased by the alleged Panchasheel Enclave Owners Welfare Society and the same were earmarked for the purpose of Community hall, school and the hospital. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to consider the explanations submitted by the petitioners, and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners as well as to the 2nd respondent a enquiry may be conducted, and then only pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 02.05.2008 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Municipal Commissioner Alwal Municipality, Alwal, R.R.District. 2.2CCs to 3.2CD copies