IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28025 of 2010 Between: A. Navaneetha ..... Petitioner AND District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District at Nampally, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri P. Raghavender Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri P. Achutham Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28025 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 20.10.2010 of respondent No.1, whereby he has cancelled the building permission granted in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.2. Though time was taken, no counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. I have heard Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent No.1, Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri P. Achutham Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3, who is impleaded during the pendency of the Writ Petition. The petitioner obtained building permission from respondent No.2 on 25.08.2009 for construction of a building in plot Nos.30 and 34 (part of Sy.No.562) of Gundlapochampally Village. She claimed that while she was constructing a building strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order cancelling the permission granted by respondent No.2 on the ground that the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2, who accorded the permission, had no competence, as the land in question falls in conservation use zone, as notified by HMDA and that sanction of building permission is against the A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 and HMDA Rules. Sri Ch. Dhanumjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the cancellation of building permission by respondent No.2 is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, as no prior notice was issued to his client before passing the impugned order. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj is unable to state whether any prior notice was given or not by respondent No.1. A perusal of the impugned order, however, shows that there is no reference to any such notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that though the petitioner has obtained permission for Ground+2 floors, she has raised construction in deviation of the said permission by raising Ground+5 floors. The only ground on which the building permission granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled is that no construction can be undertaken on the land, which is included in the conservation use zone. The aspect relating to construction of building in violation of the building permission has not been referred to in the impugned order. As there is nothing from the material on record which can show that the petitioner was given a prior notice before cancelling the building permission by respondent No.1, the impugned order is set aside giving liberty to respondent No.1 to pass a fresh order, after giving a notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondent No.3. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP No.35740 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.02.2011 ES