IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10896 of 2008 Between: Kum. Ch. Bhuvaneswari D/o. Nagendra Babu being minor rep. by her Natural Guardian and Mother Smt. Ch. Samatha R/o. F1#34, Road No.1, Municipal Employees Colony, Opp: Pinnamanenipoly Clinic Road, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada Krishna District. 2 Ch. Nagendra Babu S/o. Radha Krishna Rao R/o. D.NO.32-4-8, Praja Sakti Nagar, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Ch. Rakesh S/o. Radha Krishna Rao R/o. D.NO.32-4-8, Praja Sakti Nagar, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4 Ch. Durga Vijaya Lakshmi W/o. Radha Krishna Rao R/o. D.NO.32-4-8, Praja Sakti Nagar, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 5 M/s Prasad constructions, rep. by its Propreitor, Ch. Siva Ram Prasad. D.NO.32-4-8, Praja Sakti Nagar, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the application of the petitioner dated 2- 5-2008 as illega, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of Natural Justice, and consequently direct the respondent No.1 not to grant any building permission to the respondents 2 to 5 for the property bearing D.No. 32-4-8, situated at Praja Sakthi Nagar, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District, till the suit in O.S.NO.143 of 2007 on the file of the II Addl. Dist. Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. is disposed and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.L.NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.G.JHANSI The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 10896 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by Kum. Ch.Bhuvaneswari age 5 years, represented by her natural guardian and mother Smt. Ch. Samatha with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada-1st Respondent in not considering the application of the petitioner dated 2-5-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust. 2. The petitioner earlier approached this Court with the similar relief. The said writ petition being W.P.No. 6137 of 2008 came to be disposed of on 25-3-2008. The relevant portion of the order passed in W.P.No.6137 of 2008 reads as hereunder. “The controversy in this writ petition centers around the action of the Municipal Corporation in entertaining the application submitted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for erecting a building on the joint family property, without the consent of the petitioner, who is asserted to be a co-owner in her capacity as a coparcener of a Hindu undivided joint family. However, the right, title or interest of the writ petitioner in this particular piece of property is incapable of being verified or checked up by the Corporation, in the absence of any crystallized right. It would have been a different matter, if the civil suit instituted by the writ petitioner had already been decreed and a specified portion in the joint family property had been allocated by metes and bounds in her favour and if that particular parcel of land is sought to be developed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 without her consent, but for the present, the right, title or interest of the petitioner has not yet been specifically crystallized with regard to metes and bounds in the joint family property. It is, therefore, appropriate that the petitioner shall work out all the equitable remedies that would be available to her against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are also incidentally the defendants to O.S.No.143 of 2007. It is needless to observe that the civil Court, while trying the civil suit and passing appropriate judgment and decree therein, will bear in mind these and other related aspects, including the development of the ancestral property, which is sought to be undertaken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein without the consent of the petitioner. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs.” 3. The relief sought for in this writ petition and the relief sought for in W.P.No. 6137 of 2008 is one and the same. There is no fresh cause of action for the petitioner to come up with the instant writ petition. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 1st July, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 10896 OF 2008 1st July, 2008.