IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WP.No. 15178 OF 2010 Between: M. Dhannu singh ..... Petitioner V/s. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Minister Road, Secunderabad & 3-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. C. Raghu Counsel for the Respondents: Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy The Court made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WP.No. 15178 OF 2010 O R D E R : The petitioner herein claims to be the joint owner and possessor of the property to an extent of 600 sq.yards in survey Nos. 49, 50 and 51, ward No.2, Block No.3, Secunderabad. It is alleged that the third respondent had obtained building permit No. 176/72 of 2010 in File No. 0534/CSC/TP/18/NZ/2009, dated 08-2- 2010, for making constructions over the said land suppressing the fact that the said land was joint family property. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the building permit dated 08-2-2010 granted by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent for construction of the building on the land in question is arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation at the outset submitted that even assuming that the impugned permit was obtained by the third respondent on misrepresenting the facts, an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under section 450 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 to seek cancellation of the permission. As could be seen, section 450 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to cancel the permission on the ground of misrepresentation by the applicant. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the first respondent under section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act for redressal of his grievance. If any such representation is made, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders following due process of law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. ___________________ Justice G. Rohini. 30-06-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15178 OF 2010 Circulation Entry No. 11 Date: 30-06-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L