( 1 ) WRIT Appellant herein is the writ petitioner, who tost in W. P. No. 12923 of 1996.

( 2 ) THE appellant is a Cultural Association duly registered and came into existence in 1967. The appellant requested the second respondent to grant some land for erecting an Auditorium for purposes of promoting Fine Arts i. e. music, dance, drama and oiher cultural activities. The second respondent accordingly granted land admeasuring 4,280 Sq. yards by a registered lease deed of 17-7-1982 in favour of the appellant. The identity of the land is not in dispute. The lease was for a period of thirty years. The appellant claims that it was put in possession of the said land at the time of execution of the lease deed. Entire lease amount was paid in advance. The lessee permitted construction of Auditorium on the land subject to certain conditions of payment of taxes etc. In 1987 an application was made for construction of Auditorium. The second respondent directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 50,000. 00 towards fees, charges etc. and the amount was deposited on 20-11-1987. The plan was not sanctioned by the second respondent inspite of compliance of the direction given by it. The appellant was continuously making representation in the matter, the last being on 22-2-1992. It is alleged that the then Minister Sri Alladi Raj Kumar gave adverse report thereafter to the first respondent. This was on basis of some representation made by persons, who were ill disposed towards the appellant. As a result, Respondent No. 1 issued impugned Memorandum of Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department No. 63/ii/788-2, M. A. , dated 10-2-1992 directing Respondent No. 2 to cancel the registered lease deed dated 17-7-1982. The appellant has thereafter come to the Court for seeking a writ declaring the impugned Government Memorandum dated 10-2-1992 issued by Respondent No. 1 as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and seeks a consequential direction to Respondents 2 and 3 to sanction the plan submitted by the petitioner for construction of the Auditorium.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge before whom the writ petition came dismissed the writ petition after going through the affidavit and counter affidavits filed by the parties.

( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the land in question was granted by Respondent No. 2 by a lease. The contention of the respondents now is that the land was part and parcel of a sanctioned lay-out in favour of Government Employees Cooperative Housing Society, The land in question was reserved for purpose of play-ground, park etc. The land stood vested in Respondent No. 2 after it was reserved for purposes of park, play-ground ere. The learned single Judge found that under Section 679a of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short the Act ) the Government, is authorised either suo moto or on any representation of the Counsel, to cancel any resolution order, or licence or permit of the Corporation which is in the opinion of Respondent No. 1 not in accordance with law. The learned single Judge held that Respondent No. 2 had no authority to grant lease of the land vested in it for particular purpose. In other words, when the land is reserved for a particular purpose, it cannot be allowed to be utilized for different purpose by granting a lease even though the different purpose might also be a public purpose. It cannot be used for the purpose for which it was reserved. This is apart from the fact that Respondent No. 2 has no authority of its own to transfer the land without the Government authorization. The learned Judge also found that there was no material to show that the claim of the Appellant that the land was put in its possession was justified. On the other hand, the circumstances showed that the appellant was not in possession of the land. Another ground for dismissing the appellant s claim was that there was delay in approaching the Court. Though the learned single Judge held t