Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Addanki Hemabhushanam, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 July, 2019
Author: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.8781 of 2019
ORDER:
Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.Sodum Anvesha, learned Counsel for petitioner, Sri Md.Saleem, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, and Sri Ambati Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for SriKalahastheeswara Temple and, at their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
The Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings of respondent No.2, dated 26.06.2019, cancelling/revoking the proceedings dated 04.02.2019 for implementation of masterplan of SriKalahastheeswara Temple.
Petitioners claim to have made application dated 11.01.2019 to respondent No.2 for grant of construction permission; respondent No.2, vide permit dated 04.02.2019, granted building permission; one of the conditions stipulated therein was that the entire construction has to be completed on or before 04.02.2022; therefore, they demolished old structure and started construction; while the construction was in progress on 25.05.2019, the officials of respondent No.3 - Temple requested to stop construction on the ground that they may require the property in future on the basis of master plan 2 prepared for providing ingress and egress for visitors to SriKalahastheeswara Devasthanam, W.P.No.6820 of 2019 was filed; the said writ petition was disposed of directing to follow due process of law whenever private properties of petitioners are proposed for acquisition; by letter dated 21.06.2019, respondent No.3 requested respondent No.2 not to grant any construction permission for recently identified 13 additional structures, and cancel if any permissions were granted; by proceedings dated 22.06.2019, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice to show cause as to why permission already granted should not be cancelled in view of letter dated 21.06.2019; by the impugned proceedings dated 26.06.2019, respondent No.2 cancelled/revoked the construction permission granted earlier on 04.02.2019; and hence the writ petition.
Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.Sodum Anvesha, learned Counsel for petitioner, submits that reservation of land for future acquisition is totally unheard of, and not in accordance with law; respondent No.2 got power to cancel permission only in accordance with Section 344(6) of the A.P. Municipalities Act; and it is not their case that any conditions were violated.
Sri Md.Saleem, learned Standing Counsel for respondent - Municipality, submits that the subject land is 3 required for implementation of master plan of respondent No.3 - Temple; and, pursuant to letter of respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, action has been taken in accordance with law.
As seen from the record, permission was granted on 04.02.2019. The impugned proceedings dated 26.06.2019 were passed based on the letter dated 21.06.2019 addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 not to give any permission or alterations etc. in respect of 13 additional structures identified for implementation of master plan; and if any permissions were already granted by the Municipality, action be taken to cancel such permissions.
According to Sub-section 6 of Section 344 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, any licence or permission, granted under the Act, may be suspended or revoked by the Commissioner in consultation with the person or authority granting the licence or permission if any of its restrictions, limitations or conditions is evaded or infringed by the grantee, or if the grantee is convicted of a breach of any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule, bye-law or regulation made under it or if the grantee has obtained the same by misrepresentation or fraud.
Admittedly, the petitioners did not violate any of the conditions, under which permission has been granted. 4 Respondents sought for cancellation of permission already granted because they may acquire the subject land for implementation of master plan. As respondent No.2 does not have power to cancel the permission on the sole ground that the subject property may be required in future for implementation of master plan, the impugned proceedings dated 26.06.2019, cancellling/revoking permission already granted on 04.02.2019, is set aside.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date:10.07.2019 usd