THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 31763 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorari by calling for records of the respondent corporation relating to permit NO.3/100, dated 22.11.2010 in file No.34851/TPS/C-18/NZ/GHMC/B1/2010 and quash the letter No.171/TPS/C-18/NZ/GHMC/2011, dated 17.11.2011 passed by the respondent corporation as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The averments, in brief, of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: Petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of property bearing No.12-11-171/1/10/B (Old No.12-10-546) admeasuring 328 square yards out of 592.5 square yards, situated in survey no.20/1, Upparbasthi, Namalagundu, Miyakunta Village, Secunderabad by virtue of a settlement deed dated 2.12.1997. On the application made by the petitioner to construct ground + first floor along with stilt floor submitting all relevant documents of title and possession, and on issuing No Objection Certificate by the District Collector, Hyderabad stating that the land in question is not classified as Government land, the respondent corporation accorded permission vide permit No.3/100, dated 22.11.2010 for the proposed re- construction of the building, and accordingly, the petitioner started the construction after intimating the respondent corporation. As some local people tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, he filed Original Suit No.332 of 2011 on the file of the XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for injunction and the same is pending adjudication. Thereafter, the defendants therein started influencing the officials of respondent corporation, who visited the site on 26.5.2011 and interfered with the construction activity. The petitioner got issued mandatory notice dated 30.05.2011 under Section 685 of the HMC Act to the respondent corporation. On 02.06.2011, when the officials of respondent corporation again visited the site and interfered with the construction activity, the petitioner filed Original Suit No.462 of 2011 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, which is pending adjudication. The defendants in Original Suit No.332 of 2011 lodged a false complaint dated 17.6.2011 through S.S. Shailaja Prasad, State President of Avineethi Nirmulana Samithi, Andhra Pradesh, basing on which and on the influence of third parties, the respondent corporation initiated proceedings under Section 450 of the HMC Act issuing show cause notice dated 02.11.2011 on the ground that the matter is sub judice in Original Suit No.155 of 2005 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad wherein the Court granted permanent injunction restraining the corporation from granting permission/sanction plan on the premises in question and a complaint was received disputing the title. Petitioner submitted detailed reply to the said notice on 11.11.2011 and clarified the issues raised in the show-cause notice. However, without considering the same and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent corporation revoked the permission under section 450 of the HMC Act through the impugned order dated 17.11.2011. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained permission vide permit No.3/100, dated 22.11.2010 in file No.34851/TPS/C-18/ NZ/GHMC/B1/2010 for construction of building in the premises in question. Thereafter, it came to light that prior to granting the said permission, one D.Krishna Veni @ D.Kistamma filed Original Suit No.155 of 2005 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is fourth defendant, and the officials of respondent corporation are defendants 6 to 8, in said suit. By judgment dated 02.03.2010 in the said suit, the learned Junior Civil Judge, decreed the suit, inter alia, granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 6 to 8 therein i.e. respondent corporation, from granting permission/sanction plan in favour of the defendants 1 to 5 therein and all persons claiming through them on the house No.12-11-171/1/10/A, B, C & D. The petitioner suppressed the fact of passing of the said decree by the competent civil court, which will have a bearing in sanctioning the plan, and obtained the permission for construction. After issuing notice and giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent corporation passed the impugned order dated 17.11.2011 revoking the permission already granted. Had this fact been brought to the notice of the respondent corporation, in the normal circumstances, municipality would not have granted or sanctioned the permission in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, who suppressed the passing of the decree by a competent civil court and obtained the sanction, does not deserve grant of any discretionary relief in the Writ Petition. 5. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J) 01.12.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 31763 OF 2011 01.12.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 31763 OF 2011 DATED 01.12.2011 Between: N.Shailaja alias Aruna …Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, Town Planning Section, Circle No.18, Secunderabad, Hyderabad District …Respondent