ORDER : Nyapathy Vijay, J. 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the cancellation of building Permit Order dated 18.09.2019 vide B.A. File No.1086/1297/B/Z5/CDA/2016 without any notice and the consequential Stop Work Order dated 11.05.2020 vide Letter No. SWO/1086/2018/2506 and the Endorsement dated 11.05.2020 vide EDS/1086/2018/2909 passed by the Respondents returning the proposals for the building plan on sustainable grounds in the land to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.154/3 situated in Chinagantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows :- The property to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in Sy.No.154/3 was a zeroyiti patta situated at Gajuwaka Revenue Village, Visakhapatnam District, is claimed to be owned by the Petitioner. It is stated that a RCC roofed house was in existence prior to the year 1985 and the house tax was being paid to then Chinaganyada Gram Panchayat with Assessment No.240. After the merger of Chinaganyada Gram Panchayat in Gajuwaka Municipality, the house property tax being paid under the Assessment No.1088014299. While so, the Petitioner with an intent to construct old RCC structure had applied for building permission through online and the same was issued by the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation vide Permit No.1086/1297/B/Z5/CDA/2016, dated 05.07.2016 for the proposed construction of Stilt, Ground + 4 Upper Floors. Subsequently, the building plan of the Petitioner was returned vide Endorsement B.A.No.1086/1297/B/Z5/CDA/2016 as un-approved on the ground that the Petitioner did not pay 14% open space cost and that the land is not covered by the Land Regularization Scheme or Layout. The other reason for returning the building plan was that Electricity Tower lines are going through the site of the Petitioner. 3. It is further contended that the Petitioner submitted the explanation on 12.10.2016 stating that the 14% open space cost is not applicable since the RCC structure was on the land as on 1985 and that the property tax was being paid thereto. It was also stated that as per the clarifications issued by the Director of Town Planning on 16.05.2010 to the G.O.Ms.No.302, dated 15.04.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.569, dated 23.08.2008 stating that the building is in existence before 1985 with proof of property tax etc. need not to pay 14% open space cost. It was also stated that as per the clarifications issued by the Director of Town Planning on 16.05.2010 to the G.O.Ms.No.302, dated 15.04.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.569, dated 23.08.2008 stating that the building is in existence before 1985 with proof of property tax etc. need not to pay 14% open space cost. The Petitioner also enclosed a letter from the Superintending Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.L dated 20.06.2017 giving NOC to the subject land in Sy.No.154/3 of Chinagantyada for building plan approval. On 14.11.2016, another endorsement was issued by the Respondent No.2 revoking the building plan unilaterally. The reason given for rectification of building plan was that as per the regularization of the layout LP.No.27/1991 in Sy.No.154/3, the land in question is cover in park and playground and 30 feet road was earmarked therein. The said reason given by the authorities was again explained by the Petitioner as incorrect vide representation. On going through the representation of the Petitioner, the GVMC and VUDA officials inspected the site and sought for a legal opinion from the Law Officer and also the Estate Officer of VUDA. A paper publication was also given on 04.02.2017 seeking for deletion of the open space from L.P.No.27/1991. As no objections were received, the Petitioner’s land was deleted as open land as per the provisions of A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 vide Rc.No.1198/1991/G1/L2, dated 17.04.2017. 4. In view of the alteration of the layout plan, the Petitioner gave representation to withdraw the Endorsement dated 14.11.2016 revoking the building plan. 5. Again on 30.12.2016, the Respondent No.2 issued notice under Section 450 of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why the building plan granted in his favour should not be cancelled as the land in question is falling under L.P.No.27/1991. The Petitioner then filed W.P.No.18553 of 2017 before this Court and the same was disposed of on 13.06.2017 directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. 6. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Respondent No.2 then passed a speaking order on 18.08.2017 calling upon the Petitioner to pay 14% open space charges and for renovation of Electric Tower Lines. Though the Petitioner had filed W.P.No.27489/2017, the Respondent No.2 on 30.03.2018 passed orders cancelling the building permit approval and called upon the Petitioner to resubmit his proposal for fresh building permission. Though the Petitioner had filed W.P.No.27489/2017, the Respondent No.2 on 30.03.2018 passed orders cancelling the building permit approval and called upon the Petitioner to resubmit his proposal for fresh building permission. The Petitioner again gave another representation on 23.08.2017 as the Respondent No.2 was taking inconsistent stands. 7. On 11.05.2020, the Respondent No.2 issued Stop Work Order under Section 450 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act on the ground that the land on which the construction is being raised by the Petitioner was classified as “Rastha”. Questioning the inconsistent orders passed by the respondent authorities, the present Writ Petition is filed. 8. A Counter Affidavit was filed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. As per the Counter Affidavit, the Petitioner had has obtained online building permission under B.A.No.1086/1297/B/Z5 CBA/2016, dated 05.07.2016 for construction of residential building stilt for parking, G + 4 floors in an extent of 3036.1 Sq. meters covered by Sy.No.154/3 of Chinagantyada, Visakhapatnam. During the course of post verification, it was noted that the proposed site was not covered by approved layout and as such the building permission was returned by way of an endorsement dated 17.09.2016 as the Petitioner was called upon to pay 14% open space charges. Subsequently, a notice was issued on 30.12.2016 stating that the proposed site comes under Park and Playground and 30 feet road as per L.P.No.27/91. 9. Taking into consideration the representation of the Petitioner, the land in question was deleted as open space from L.P.No.27/91 after following the procedure is prescribed under Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas Development Act, 1975. It is further stated that pursuant to the orders passed in W.P.No.18553 of 2017, the Respondent-Corporation passed a speaking order on 18.08.2017 calling upon the Petitioner to pay open space charges as directed earlier. As the amounts were not being paid, the building permission in favour of Petitioner on 05.07.2016 was revoked on 30.03.2018. It is further stated that the Petitioner by suppressing the revocation of the building permission again applied for building permission on 18.09.2019 for the very same site. 10. On verification and after conduct of survey, the Additional Director of survey and Land Records opined that an extent of Ac.0.67 cents falls in Sy.No.154/317 and Ac.0.07 cents falls under Sy.No.159, which is shown as ‘Rastha’ as per the scope of Assistant Director of Survey of Land Records. 10. On verification and after conduct of survey, the Additional Director of survey and Land Records opined that an extent of Ac.0.67 cents falls in Sy.No.154/317 and Ac.0.07 cents falls under Sy.No.159, which is shown as ‘Rastha’ as per the scope of Assistant Director of Survey of Land Records. On the basis of the survey, a shortfall notice was issued to the Petitioner for rectifying the said defects by issuing Stop Work Order dated 11.05.2020. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 11. Heard Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation. 12. Contentions :- The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the objections are being altered from time to time by the Respondent authorities, as narrated above. According to the counsel for the Petitioner, the first objection raised by the Respondent authorities was that open space charges at the rate of 14% should be paid by the Petitioner and the second objection was that the property is shown as Park in L.P.No.27/91 and the third objection is that a part of the property is falling in Sy.No.159, which is classified as ‘Rastha’. The counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the property in question was the ancestral property and never formed part of the layout at any point of time and even otherwise the property was stood deleted from the layout as per the procedure in Andhra Pradesh Areas Development Act, 1975 and the present objection is that the property comes within the ‘Rastha’ does not reflect any bona fides on the part of the Petitioner. 13. As regards the open space charges, the counsel for the Petitioner contends that there is a RCC roofed building in the property for which the property tax was being paid by the Petitioner to Chinagantyada Village vide Assessment 240 and thereafter to Gajuwaka Municipality with Assessment No.1088014299 and this aspect was never being considered by the Respondent authorities in spite of the representations of the Petitioner nor this aspect was addressed to in the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 14. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent- Corporation submits that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the Respondent authorities in issuing the impugned proceedings and all the proceedings were issued on the basis of the record that is available with the Respondent authorities. 14. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent- Corporation submits that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the Respondent authorities in issuing the impugned proceedings and all the proceedings were issued on the basis of the record that is available with the Respondent authorities. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the Petitioner is bound to pay open space charges to the Respondent-Corporation. 15. It is further contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the Petitioner should explain the fact that a part of the property is shown as ‘Rastha’ in Sy.No.159. 16. Reasoning: Having heard the respective counsel, this Court reasons as follows: The inconsistent stand of the Respondent authorities in objecting the construction by the Petitioner is apparent as narrated above. If the property in question is a part of layout LP No.27/91 and was deleted pursuant to the request of the Petitioner as per the procedure prescribed, there is no reason to pay 14% open space charges by the Petitioner. The 14% open space charges are required to be paid only when the layout is an unapproved layout and not otherwise. 17. Coming to the second objection that the property in question is shown as Park in L.P.No.27/91, the said objection may not be of any relevance today, since the layout in L.P.No.27/91 was admittedly modified by deleting the property in question as Park in the said layout. 18. As regards the third objection that a part of the property of Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.No.159 is shown as ‘Rastha’ pursuant to the survey conducted by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, a survey was again conducted pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court on 25.04.2024 and a Memo was filed enclosing the survey report vide WPUSR No.29917 of 2025 dated 19.032025 enclosing a letter of the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka to the Zonal Commissioner, GVMC-VI, Gajuwaka. 19. As per the letter dated 25.01.2025 in Rc.No.545/2025/SA, a tabular statement was given, which is extracted below:- Sl.No. Name of the Mandal Name of the Village Sy.No. Extent (Sq. yds) Extent (Ac. Cts) Classification as per MDR Remarks as per 22A (Prohibited properties list) 1. Gajuwaka Chinagantyada 154-3A Part 3129 0.64 ½ Ryotwari Pallam (Private) Not listed u/s 22A List 2. Gajuwaka Chinagantyada 154-8 Part 383 0.08 Ryotwari Pallam (Private) Not listed u/s 22A List 3. yds) Extent (Ac. Cts) Classification as per MDR Remarks as per 22A (Prohibited properties list) 1. Gajuwaka Chinagantyada 154-3A Part 3129 0.64 ½ Ryotwari Pallam (Private) Not listed u/s 22A List 2. Gajuwaka Chinagantyada 154-8 Part 383 0.08 Ryotwari Pallam (Private) Not listed u/s 22A List 3. Gajuwaka Chinagantyada 159 Part 125 0.02 ½ Poramboke Rasta (Governme nt Land) Recorded in 22A List 20. As per the said letter, a joint survey was conducted by the Mandal Surveyor, Town Surveyor and Town Planning technical staff and per their survey, the only extent of Ac.0.02 ½ cents of the Petitioner’s property is shown as falling under Sy.No.159 Part. Pursuant to this survey, the extent of the property of the Petitioner in Sy.No.159 has been reduced from Ac.0.07 cents to Ac.0.02 ½ cents. 21. The above mentioned Paragraphs show inconsistencies spread all over from time to time by the Respondents with regard to the building permission application by the Petitioner. The objections are varying from time to time and the consistent plea of Petitioner is that there was a RCC building in Sy.No.159/3 in an extent of Ac.0.75 cents for which the Petitioner and their predecessors were paying tax to Chinaguntyada as well as Gajuwaka referred above, is not addressed at any point of time. 22. Therefore, this Court is not satisfied with the inconsistent objections taken by the Respondent authorities from time to time and the impugned proceedings issued by the Respondent authorities are set-aside. 23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.