THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.27021 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of premises bearing No.7-3-189 (old No.7-3-29/52), of Nirmal town. It abuts the compound wall of a Court building, in the town. The petitioner was accorded permission on 23- 06-2007 to construct a building. However, the Commissioner of Municipality, the 1st respondent herein, received a complaint from the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal, to the effect that the petitioner is trying to encroach into the Court compound. The 1st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 09-11-2009, requiring the petitioner to explain, as to why the permission accorded to him be not cancelled. Stating that the petitioner did not submit any explanation, the 1st respondent passed orders dated 27-11-2009, cancelling the permission. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. This Court called for a report from the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal, as to the situation on the ground. The report discloses that the petitioner made an attempt to encroach into the Court’s property. The petitioner is said to have demolished the old building in the premises, and obtained permission to construct a new house. He ought to have made construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, that too, within the existing boundaries. He made an attempt to encroach into the Court’s property, either wantonly or inadvertently. That naturally provoked the 1st respondent to cancel the permission. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he encroached into the property of the Court. If there is an uncertainty as to the boundary, it can be fixed by the competent authority in the presence of an official of the Court, and the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner can resume construction. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that, a) the 1st respondent shall arrange for fixation of boundaries between the premises owned by the petitioner, and the abutting Court compound, and b) if, on fixation of the boundaries to the satisfaction of both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent shall revoke the impugned order dated 27-11-2009, so as to enable the petitioner to make construction, strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, and without encroaching into the property of the Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-03-2011. KO