THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10057 of 2009 Date:19.04.2011 Between: G.M.Franklin Albert and another ..... Petitioners AND The Nalgonda Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, Nalgonda and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.Laxmi Manohar, for Sri M.Madhav Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Ch.Hemachand Naidu for Smt Santhi Neelam, standing counsel for Municipalities Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri J. Suresh Babu The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notice No.G1/111/08 dated 22.04.2009 of respondent No.1 cancelling the building permission granted in favour of the petitioners for construction of house bearing No.5-4-75, situated in Church compound, Ward No.5, Block No.4 of Nalgonda town. I have heard Sri M. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri J.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioners applied for grant of building permission before respondent No.1 for construction of a house over a plot admeasuring 317 sq. yards. Respondent No.1, by its proceedings No.G1/111/08 dated 18.12.2008 granted building permission to the petitioners. Thereafter, respondent No.2 approached respondent No.1 with objection petition dated 17.02.2009, wherein it was stated that she has filed O.S.No.198 of 2008 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, for declaration of title and that as the said suit is pending, the building permission ought not to have been granted in favour of the petitioners. She, therefore, sought for cancellation of the building permission. On receipt of objections, the Commissioner of respondent No.1 Municipality issued notice dated 26.02.2008 calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the building permission granted in their favour shall not be cancelled. Evidently, the petitioners failed to file their explanation. By the impugned proceedings, the Commissioner of respondent No.1 Municipality has revoked (cancelled) the building permission. A perusal of the material on record would show that in the suit filed by respondent No.2, she has filed I.A.No.61 of 2009 for interim injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with her peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. By order dated 04.02.2009, the said injunction application was dismissed. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 stated that in C.M.A. filed by his client, a direction was given by the appellate Court to the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously without interfering with the order dismissing the injunction application. Interestingly, after failing to get an order of injunction a few days later i.e., on 17.02.2009, respondent No.2 approached respondent No.1 with the objection petition, wherein she failed to refer to the fact that her injunction application was dismissed. Therefore, I do not find bona fides in the conduct of respondent No.2 in approaching respondent No.1 with objections against grant of building permission in favour of the petitioners. Moreover, respondent No.1 failed to assign any reasons whatsoever while cancelling the building permission except stating that the petitioners failed to submit explanation to the show cause notice. Under Section 344(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, a building permission is liable to be suspended or revoked by the Commissioner, inter alia, on the ground that the grantee has obtained the same by misrepresentation or fraud. Except making an allegation in the show cause notice that the petitioners have misguided the office and obtained construction permission, respondent No.1 failed to give any reasons for coming to this conclusion. In the impugned notice revoking the building permission granted in favour of the petitioners, even the said allegation was not reiterated. In my opinion, mere pendency of a suit raising title dispute cannot be made a ground to cancel the building permission already granted unless there is definite material available with the authority granting permission that such permission was obtained by the grantee by misrepresentation or by playing fraud. Nothing is brought out by any of the respondents before this Court to show that the petitioners have made any misrepresentation or committed fraud in obtaining the building permission. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned notice dated 22.04.2009 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. The building permitted granted by respondent No.1 and the construction raised by the petitioners shall, however, be subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, interim order dated 20.05.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.13003 of 2009 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.13003 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.1868 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th April, 2011 GHN