IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12621 of 2008 Between: S. Shantamma W/o. S. Narayana Reddy R/o.H.No.8-68, Temple Alwal, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Alwal Circle, rep. by its Dy. Commissioner, Alwal, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in revoking the construction permission issued vide proceedings No.G1/247/BA/247/2007 dated 23.08.2007 vide proceedings No.G-1/1229/2007 dated 12.05.2008 as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently quash the said order. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.M.R.VELU Counsel for the Respondent.: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt. S.Shantamma assailing the action of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Alwal Circle, rep. by its Deputy Commissioner-1st respondent in revoking the building permission accorded to her on 23.08.2007. 2. The petitioner purchased a house bearing No.30-122/60 on Plot Nos.60 and 61 comprising Survey No.372, situated at Krishna Nagar Colony, Alwal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, J.Venkatesham, J.Prabhakar, J.Sudhakar, J.Dayakar, J.Chandrasekhar, J.Vidyakar, J.Santosh Kumar, J.Keshava Rao, and J.Madhava Rao, under a registered sale deed dated 14.11.1995. She applied for building permission to construct ground and first floor. The 1st respondent- Corporation, after satisfying with the documents furnished by the petitioner, accorded sanction vide proceedings dated 23.08.2007. The petitioner demolished the existing building and engaged a civil contractor to undertake construction of a new building as per the sanctioned plan. Whileso, the 1st respondent-Corporation issued a show-cause notice dated 12.12.2007 calling upon her to submit explanation as to why building construction permission granted to her on 23.08.2007 should not be suspended till the matter is finalized. The petitioner submitted explanation to the show-cause notice. The 1st respondent-Corporation being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to revoke the permission accorded to the petitioner for construction of the building. The text of the proceedings dated 12.05.2008 issued by the 1st respondent-Corporation reads as hereunder: “ORDER: In the reference 4th cited a show cause notice was served to explain why the permission issued vide reference 1st cited should not be revoked. But, the reply which you have submitted is not satisfactory, and the Joint Collector, R.R.District vide Court Case No.B4/6396/96 issued orders against the above said land mentioning not to alienate the property by way of execution of sale deeds and also not to sanction any municipal permission in respect of the said land. Therefore, Smt.S.Shantamma W/o.Narayana Reddy is hereby informed that the permission issued vide this office Proc.No.G1/246/BA/246/2007, dated 22.08.2007 is hereby revoked.” The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. 4. The petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.16628 of 2008 seeking impleadment of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, as 2nd respondent in the writ petition. The said application came to be allowed on 21.07.2008 and consequently, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, came to be impleaded as 2nd respondent in the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Corporation and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 2nd respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the revocation of the building permission based on the order passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in Court Case No.B4/6396/96, dated 13.10.1997, cannot be justified. A further submission has been made that the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District-2nd respondent is the subject matter in C.R.P.No.4796 of 1997, whereunder the claim of the tenants namely K.Mohan Reddy and K.Narasimha Reddy came to be rejected. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner has to get clearance certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling authorities as the lands held by the landholders exceeded the ceiling limit. 8. A fact remains that the petitioner has purchased Plot Nos.60 and 61 comprising Survey No.372, situated at Krishna Nagar Colony, Alwal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, under a registered sale deed dated 14.11.1995. A show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on the ground that an observation has been made by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy-2nd respondent in his order dated 13.10.1997 with regard to the status quo as to the nature of the land. The copy of the order passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy-2nd respondent has been placed on record. The relevant portion of the said order reads as hereunder: “ISSUE NO.3: The respondent herein had obtained the orders for change of land use from agriculture to residential use in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.363, 364, 371 admeasuring Ac.51.06 gts. situated at Khanajiguda H/o.Alwal village vide procegs.No.B1/14547/69, dt.15.12.1969. The said lands were converted as Non-Agriculture land prior to enforcement of Urban Land (C&R) Act, 1976. The village of Alwal is situated within urban spread area under the provisions of U.L.C.(C&R) Act, 1976. The counsel for the respondent has not argued any thing about this issue and also not produced any documents showing the lands declared by the respondent under the provisions of U.L. (C&R) Act, 1976. Therefore, the respondent herein shall obtain clearance from the Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad. In view of the above chronological events the status quo order granted by this Court dt.8.11.1996 is hereby modified, that the respondent and appellants including 3rd parties if they are in possession of the said land shall not alter the land, and shall not dispose off the land, nor create any third party interest on the suit land till obtaining the clearance from the Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad, to avoid further litigations. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District is requested to issue necessary instructions to the Sub-Registrar concerned not to entertain any sale deeds in respect of the above lands till they get clearance from the Special Officer & Competent Authority, U.L.C., Hyderabad. The Commissioner, Alwal Municipality, is requested not to entertain any Building permission in the said land, which are executed and registered after enforcement of Urban Land (C&R) Act, 1976.” It is the claim of the petitioner that the landholders converted the land into non- agriculture land and got the lay out approved and thereafter, sold the plots to various persons and that she is one among the purchasers. 9. Such is the situation, the petitioner is at liberty to submit an application before the 1st respondent-Corporation enclosing the lay out plan and also the certificate issued by the U.L.C. Authorities and thereupon the 1st respondent-Corporation has to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon within four weeks thereafter. 10. With the above said observation, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:12th August, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}