ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.4 in issuing revocation letter No.67087/GHMC/7782/2021, dated 09.09.2021 as illegal and set aside the same. 3. Originally Mr. V. Poornachander Rao had purchased the land to an extent of Acs.7-24 guntas in Sy.No.317, situated at Budvel Village, Hyderabad West from one Khaja Mir Wajid Ali and another through a registered sale deed bearing document No.9 of 1969 dated 07.01.1969. Thereafter, Mr.V.Poornachander Rao had executed General Power of Attorney (GPA) vide document bearing No.10 of 1978, dated 14.07.1978 in favour of Mr. S. Appaiah to sell the said land. Pursuant to the said GPA, Mr. S. Appaiah converted the said land into 102 residential plots by obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayath, and sold the plots to various individuals including the petitioner’s vendors. In the said layout, the petitioner’s society had also purchased 32 plots in the year 1996. 4. The petitioner’s Vendor, Mr. Abhay Raj Mathur had purchased Plot No.72, admeasuring 365 square yards from Mr. Poornachander Rao through registered sale deed bearing document No.1645 of 1978, dated 31.08.1978 and thereafter the petitioner purchased the said plot through registered sale deed bearing document No.1986 of 1996, dated 06.02.1996. 5. The petitioner made an application to the GHMC for regularization of an unapproved Lay-out in respect of Plot No.71 in Sy.No.317, Rajendranagar Circle, which is hereinafter called ‘subject property’ by paying requisite fee and accordingly, respondent authorities had issued proceedings No.LRS13032018125100, dated 13.08.2018 by regularizing the petitioner’s plot. Thereafter, the petitioner with an intention to construct a compound wall and rooms submitted an application dated 12.08.2021 through Online. Respondent No.4 after satisfying with the documents submitted by the petitioner and after receipt of the necessary charges, granted permission vide permit No.3885/GHMC/2021 in File No.67087/GHMC/7782/2021, dated 12.08.2021, but later the same was revoked vide revocation letter dated 09.09.2021 on the following grounds: “i) As report submitted by SO, the submitted documents are not tallying with physical position. Hence proposals may be rejected. Hence proposals may be rejected. (ii) The plot area is not tallying with the submitted ownership documents/as specified in the TS-bPASS application form. (iii) As report submitted by SO, the submitted documents are not tallying with physical possession. Hence proposals may be rejected.” Challenging the above, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition. 6. Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner applied for LRS in respect of the subject plots, and the same were got regularized by the GHMC. The petitioner had applied for permission for construction on the subject plot. Before granting permission, respondent authorities having conducted spot inspection and satisfied with the documents submitted by the petitioner, granted the permission to the petitioner and, therefore, revocation of building permit is illegal and arbitrary. He would further submit that respondent NO.4 did not issue any notice and did not afford an opportunity before revoking the building permit. Therefore, it is illegal and arbitrary. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has occupied the road which leads to the other plots in the Lay-Out and thereby blocking the way to other plot owners and, therefore, the GHMC has revoked the building permit. 8. Referring to LRS proceedings, dated 13.03.2018 issued by the GHMC and also the reasons mentioned in the revocation letter, dated 09.09.2021, Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned senior counsel, would submit that the submissions made by the learned standing counsel are contrary to the reasons mentioned in the revocation letter dated 09.09.2021 and the LRS proceedings dated 13.08.2018. 9. In view of the above submissions, it is not in dispute that the GHMC authorities have regularized the subject plot belonging to the petitioner and that when the petitioner applied for building construction the same was accorded by them. After granting permission, respondent No.3 revoked the same vide letter dated 09.09.2021 with the reasons mentioned above. But, a perusal of the revocation letter dated 09.09.2021 issued by the respondent authorities would reveal that there is no mention about either serving of any notice on the petitioner or affording an opportunity for submission of its explanation. Thus, the impugned revocation letter dated 09.09.2021 is in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. The action of respondent authorities in issuing revocation letter is a punitive action. Thus, the impugned revocation letter dated 09.09.2021 is in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. The action of respondent authorities in issuing revocation letter is a punitive action. It is settled law that before initiating any punitive action, the respondent authorities are bound to adhere to the principles of natural justice as held by this Court in Mirza Khusru Ali Baig v. The Greater Municipal Corporation, 2013 (2) ALD 785 . But, in the present case, respondent authorities have not complied with the same and there is a violation of principles of natural justice. 11. In view of the above discussion and on the ground that impugned punitive action of revocation of building permission was not preceded by compliance of principles of natural justice, the impugned revocation letter dated 09.09.2021 is hereby set aside without considering the merits and demerits of the case. However, respondent No.4 is directed to pass orders afresh in accordance with law by putting the petitioner on notice and affording an opportunity of hearing. The said exercise shall be completed within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Considering the submission made by the learned standing counsel for GHMC that the petitioner has occupied the road which leads to other plots in the layout and thereby blocking the road to reach other plots, the petitioner shall not make any construction pursuant to the building permit dated 12.08.2021 till the said exercise is completed. 12. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.