THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.21331 of 2011 Dated 01st August, 2011 Between: Md.Chand Pasha …Petitioner And The Municipal Corporation Karimnagar rep.by its Commissioner O/o.Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Venkataswamy Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri S.M.Sayeed For Sri J.Kanakaiah Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri V.Srikanth Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings No.G1/867/2010, dated 30.05.2011, whereby respondent No.1 has cancelled the petitioner’s building permission accorded vide proceedings No.G1/867/2010, dated 08.12.2010. I have heard Sri P.Venkataswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.M.Sayeed, learned counsel, representing Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. The petitioner applied to respondent No.1 for sanction of building permission over plot Nos.2 and 3. According to him, the petitioner’s elder brother, Raj Mohammed, got title over the property under a decree, dated 29.06.1989, in O.S.No.602 of 1983 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Karimnagar, and that after the death of his brother, his legal heirs executed a registered relinquishment deed, bearing Doc.No.160/2010, dated 08.01.2010, in favour of the petitioner. The building plan submitted by the petitioner was approved vide proceedings, dated 08.12.2010, of respondent No.1. On the complaint of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 issued show-cause notice, dated 10.05.2011, to the petitioner, whereby he was called upon to submit his explanation as to why the building permission granted shall not be cancelled as he has obtained the said permission through misrepresentation by suppressing the fact that the application submitted by him included 3’ wide lane. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.1 issued the impugned memo, whereby he has cancelled the permission earlier granted. At the hearing, Sri P.Venkataswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the land belongs to the Government, no rights have flown to the petitioner through the family relinquishment deed and that therefore, the said deed has no relevance in computing the measurements. He placed reliance on the proceedings, dated 06.06.2011, under which, the District Collector, Karimnagar has regularised the petitioner’s possession to the extent of 105 sq.yards of land in Survey No.1104 of Karimnagar Town and Mandal, and directed the Tahsildar, Karimnagar to execute a regular conveyance deed before the concerned Sub-Registrar. The leaned counsel submitted that according to the said proceedings, a conveyance deed is required to be executed for 105 sq.yards and the petitioner has constructed the building over the said extent of 105 sq.yards only. What is consternating is that the petitioner approached respondent No.1 for sanction of building permission without acquiring title over the land in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that as per the documents filed by the petitioner, on the strength of which, the building permission was granted, the width of the property is only 28’-0”, whereas the application submitted by the petitioner had shown the width as 30’-10”, as found by respondent No.1 in the impugned proceedings. In the first place, respondent No.1 ought not to have sanctioned the plan without being satisfied with the prima facie title of the petitioner. Be that as it may, so far conveyance deed has not been executed by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner as directed by the District Collector. The petitioner is unable to point out as to how the finding of respondent No.1 rendered in the impugned order that the total width of the plot is only 28’-0” as per the purported document of title produced by him is erroneous. Even assuming that no title passed to the petitioner under the document on the strength of which the permission was sanctioned, even on the petitioner’s own showing, the width of the plot is shown as only 28’-0” in the said document. Under Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 the provisions of which are applicable to respondent No.1, the Commissioner has power to cancel the permission if he is satisfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under Sections 428 or 433 or if the further information if any furnished. In my opinion, respondent No.1 has given cogent and convincing reasons for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has obtained the building permission by misrepresentation that the width of the plot is 30’-10” as against the width of 28’-0”. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by respondent No.1. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 may re-consider the petitioner’s application by treating the width of the property as 28’-0” and grant a fresh permission. The petitioner is permitted to re-submit his application along with the relevant documents to respondent No.1. If respondent No.1 is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to raise the construction to the extent of 28’-0”, he shall consider the petitioner’s application afresh and take a decision thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such fresh application. Till such decision is taken, the petitioner shall not raise further construction and respondent No.1 shall not remove the constructions already made. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.25964 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st August, 2011 VGB