JUDGMENT

P. K. MISRA, J. — In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order under Annexure-4, whereun¬der the opposite party No. 2 has cancelled the permission No. 66, dated 20.1.1998.

2. It is not disputed that on the application of the petitioner, permission was granted for construction of a market complex. Subsequently, the said permission has been cancelled by the Council in the meeting dated 30.7.1998, as intimated to the petitioner under Annexure-4.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Notified Area Council has submitted that since the land in question is being utilised as a playground, the permission was cancelled. When pressed upon to point out the source of authority of the Notified Area Council to pass such an order, the learned counsel has invited my attention to the provision contained in Section 269(6) of the Orissa Municipal Act, which is extracted hereunder :

“269. Grounds on which approval of site for or licence to construct or reconstruct building may be refused :

The only grounds on which approval of a site for the construction or reconstruction of a building or permission to construct or reconstruct a building may be refused are the fol¬lowing, namely :

xx xx xx

(6) that the proposed building would be an encroachment upon Government or Municipal land.

xx xx xx"

Section 269 of the Act does not contemplate that permission once given can be cancelled. However, even assuming that under Sec. 269 permission once granted can be cancelled, as per Section 269(6), upon which reliance has been placed, such refusal can be on the ground that the building would be an encroachment upon Government or Municipal land. I is not disputed that the land in question belongs to the petitioner. However, it is claimed that the land is being utilised for the purpose of a playground of a Government High School. Even assuming that such land was being utilised for the purpose of playground, it cannot be said that such land has become Government land. There is no material to show that the land has become a Government land. On the other hand, the land has been recorded in the name of the petitioner. It further appears that even the note of possession in the R.O.R. to the effect that the land was used as playground has been deleted. It is stated that against such order of deletion of the note of possession, a writ application is pending. Even accepting that the note to the effect that the land is used as a playground is to be restored, the action of the Notified Area Council is cancelling the permission earlier granted and that too without giving any opportunity of being heard cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.

The writ application is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.