THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1189 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner submitted an application to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, respondent No.1 herein, in the year 1994 with a request to accord permission to construct over an area of 800 square yards in premises bearing No.1-10-11/1, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad. Permission was accorded on 07.11.1994 to construct ground + four upper floors. The construction was completed by 1995. On 21.05.2002, respondent No.2 submitted a complaint stating that he is the owner of 300 square yards of land upon which the petitioner made construction and that the permission was obtained by misrepresenting the facts. He has referred to a suit filed by him and the decree obtained therein. Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 04.05.2006, requiring him to explain as to why the permission be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.05.2006. Taking the same into account, respondent No.1 passed an order, dated 09.01.2007, cancelling the permission. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that there was a dispute between himself and respondent No.2 in respect of 300 square yards of land in O.S.No.2200 of 1980 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and that E.P.No.24 of 1985 was filed for execution thereof. He contends that a compromise was entered into between himself and respondent No.2 where under a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to respondent No.2 in full and final settlement of the dispute. Respondent No.2 is said to have acknowledged the right and title of the petitioner over 300 square yards of land and relinquished all his rights and that there was no basis for respondent No.1 to cancel the permission. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that he filed the suit against the petitioner for eviction and that the same was decreed. He further submits that no compromise as such was recorded by the Court much less any document was registered conveying title or conferment rights upon the petitioner in respect of 300 square yards of land. It is stated that the petitioner resorted to misrepresentation while obtaining permission. Heard Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.C.Jayasree Sarathy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Permission was accorded to the petitioner way back on 07.11.1994 and construction was commenced immediately. By 1995, it is said to have been completed. In case respondent No.2 has any objection for the construction, he ought to have approached respondent No.1 immediately or instituted proceedings in a Court of law. It was only in 2002 i.e. eight years after the date of sanction that he filed a complaint before respondent No.1. It may be true that respondent No.2 was armed with a decree in O.S.No.2200 of 1980 against the petitioner and that E.P. was also filed. The petitioner pleaded that the dispute between himself and respondent No.2 was compromised and he paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the dispute. It is no doubt true that the compromise was not recorded nor any document ensued. All the same, if respondent No.2 felt that the rights under the decree are intact, he could have executed the decree or instituted fresh proceedings. The representation made by him to respondent No.1 was hopelessly belated and the action taken thereon by respondent No.1 is totally unwarranted. Once the building is constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan and it is put to use, there is no purpose in cancelling the permission. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to respondent No.2 to avail such remedies as are open to him in law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.02.2011 kdl