HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.29602 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not taking any action against respondent No.3 with regard to his illegal and unauthorised construction made in the premises of the petitioner bearing No.7-163/2 in Plot Nos.418 and 443, admeasuring 200 square yards in Sy.Nos.299/1, 300/1 and 301/1 of Vinayak Nagar, Quthbullapur Circle, Hyderabad, as illegal and consequently, direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take appropriate action against respondent No.3 pursuant to the representation, dated 29.08.2011 and legal notice dated, 29.09.2011, of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the Writ Petition may be as follows: - The petitioner stated that he purchased the property referred to above from one Sri Krishna Kumar under an agreement of sale, dated 17.01.1996; that his vendor purchased the said property from one Sri B.Venkatesham under agreement of sale deed, dated 10.02.1995; that his vendor assured that the latter’s vendor had valid title over the said property; that he constructed one room and compound wall in the said premises; that on coming to know that his vendor and his vendor’s vendor are not holding any legal right and valid title over the aforesaid property to sell to the third parties, he approached one Satyanarayana, who is the absolute owner of the said property as reflected in the revenue records and got registered half share of 100 square yards in his name and balance of 100 square yards in the name of his relative Smt Kuruva Laxmamma, and later transferred the said property in his name; and thus, he became the absolute owner and possessor of the said property. While so, one Subrahmanyam, in whose name it is alleged that the petitioner’s vendor created another document, filed a suit-O.S.No.438 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, which ended in dismissal. But, it is further alleged that at the behest of the said Subrahmanyam, respondent No.3 forcibly occupied the petitioner’s property and hence, he filed O.S.No.1796 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar against respondent No.3. Pending the said suit, respondent No.3 started raising structures on the property in question without obtaining any prior permission from respondent No.1. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when a civil suit is pending between the petitioner and another with regard to the title of the property in question, respondent No.1 has no authority to sanction any plan in favour of respondent No.3 and hence, prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that as per the building bye-laws under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, before the plan is approved, the objections of the petitioner, if any, on this aspect will be considered by respondent No.1 and appropriate decision will be taken and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 29.08.2011, requesting the respondent-authorities not to issue building permission in favour of respondent No.3 on the ground that a civil suit- O.S.No.1796 of 2011 is pending between him and another on the file of the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy District, for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the said property. Therefore, appropriate decision has to be taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 before sanctioning any plan. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take appropriate decision on the representation, dated 29.08.2011, of the petitioner, after giving a reasonable opportunity to both the petitioner and respondent No.3 before sanctioning the plan in favour of respondent No.3. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 08thNovember 2011 DR