THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.4484 of 2006 Date: 25.02.2011 Between : Dandu Sridevi … Petitioner and The Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, Rep.by its Commissioner. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.4484 of 2006 ORDER : This writ petition has been filed assailing the order of the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam in proceedings B.A.No.10047/2005/ACP-II, dated 20.11.2005, cancelling the permission for construction granted in favour of the petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 250 square yards of house site situated in T.S.No.33 of Waltair Ward, Laxminagar Layout, Visakhapatnam, having acquired the same by virtue of a registered Gift Deed dated 30.8.2003 executed by one P.V. Subba Raju, who is said to be her uncle. She obtained permission in proceedings B.A.No.10047/2005/ACP-II, dated 21.2.2005 issued by the respondent-Corporation for construction of Ground + 2 upper floors for residential purpose. During the process of construction, the respondent-Corporation served a notice dated 15.4.2005 to the petitioner proposing to cancel the permission granted purportedly on the basis of a complaint made by the Estate Officer of Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, alleging that the site in Sy.No.34 of Waltair Ward belongs to Andhra University and the petitioner had encroached upon a portion of the said site. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 21.4.2005 inter alia denying the allegation that she had encroached any part of the site in Sy.No.34. She had explained that earlier also when the University raised the same objection and sought to disturb the possession, her predecessor in title P.Venkata Subba Raju instituted suit O.S.No.1798 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, against Andhra University and the same was decreed by judgment and decree dated 19.3.2002 granting perpetual injunction against the University. The petitioner, therefore, requested the respondent-Corporation to allow her to proceed with the construction. However, the respondent- Corporation passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2005 cancelling the construction permission granted in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 3. Heard Sri K. Raghava Charyulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation and perused the material available on record. 4. A perusal of the judgment in O.S.No.1798 of 2002, dated 19.3.2002 would show that the plaintiff therein i.e., P.Venkata Subba Raju was the absolute owner and possessor of the site admeasuring 250 square yards covered by T.S.No.33 situated at Lakshmi Nagar layout by virtue of a sale deed dated 28.4.1990 executed by one Antyakula Rajeswara Rao. He got constructed a shed bearing Door No.1-11-50/1 in the said site. When his possession was sought to be disturbed by Andhra University, the plaintiff filed the above suit seeking perpetual injunction. Andhra University filed written statement contending that an extent of Acs.2.87 cents in Sy.No.34 was acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the University apart from other extents of lands situated in other survey numbers and the same has been given to the University. It was sought to be contended that the plaint schedule property was part and parcel of Sy.No.34. The Court below on considering the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the University has no right or interest whatsoever in the land covered by T.S.No.33 and no evidence was placed to show that the plaint schedule property is part and parcel of Sy.No.34. 5. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that in the written statement filed by the University, it was clearly admitted that the University has no right or interest in the land covered by T.S.No.33. Therefore, on an analysis of the evidence on record, the suit was decreed. Even though the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1798 of 2002, dated 19.3.2002 has become final and binding on the University, suppressing the said fact, it filed a petition before the respondent-Corporation objecting to the construction being undertaken by the petitioner on the site in T.S.No.33. Curiously, even the respondent-Corporation also, without considering the explanation of the petitioner, passed the impugned order. 6. A perusal of the impugned order, dated 20.11.2005, discloses that it is almost a one line order to the effect that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not satisfactory. As already noticed, the petitioner offered a detailed explanation referring to the suit proceedings between her uncle and the University with reference to the same subject matter. The respondent- Corporation, therefore, ought to have considered the said explanation and passed a reasoned order. Unfortunately, the respondent-Corporation has not even taken the minimum care to peruse the judgment in the suit. This action of the respondent- Corporation creates an impression that it was acting at the instance of the University authorities. Needless to say that when the construction permission was granted to the petitioner, it was required to peruse the material, including the prima-facie title of the petitioner. Having granted permission on such prima-facie satisfaction, the respondent-Corporation could not have cancelled the permission even without considering the explanation of the petitioner in its proper perspective and ignoring the judgment of the Court below. 7. As mentioned supra, the Court below has categorically recorded a finding that the suit schedule property is a site in T.S.No.33 in respect of which the University has no claim whatsoever. The alleged complaint of the University, which is the basis for passing the impugned order, does not relate to the site in T.S.No.33. A minimum precaution taken by the respondent- Corporation would have revealed the fact that the petitioner is concerned with the site in T.S.No.33, but not the site in Sy.No.34. Demonstrably, the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and in utter disobedience to the judgment of the Court below in O.S.No.1798 of 2002, dated 19.3.2002. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 20.11.2005 is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2005 passed by the respondent- Corporation. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 25.02.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.4484 of 2006 25.02.2011 (Msr)