IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal Nos. 1042 & 1043 of 2009 Writ Appeal No.1042 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13.7.2009 in WP NO: 25744 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1) Mohd. Mushtaq S/o. Mohd. Yousuf, aged 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.3-9-60/1, Syed Zalal Guarden, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 2) Mohd. Ashfaq, S/o. Mohd. Yousuf, aged 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-9-60/1, Syed Zalal Guarden, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 3) Mohd. Feroz S/o. Mohd. Yousuf, aged 28 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-9-60/1, Syed Zalal Guarden, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. ... APPELLANTS AND 1) The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, MCH Buildings, Hyderabad 2) The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.10, (Old Circle No.5), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 3) The Asst. City Planner, Circle No.10, (Old Circle No.5), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 4) The Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 5) The District Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 6) The Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 7) Sri P.Prithvidhar Reddy S/o. P.Manik Reddy R/o. H.No.4-7-323, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabd. 8) Smt.P. Bhagya W/o. P. Manik Reddy, R/o. H.No.H.No.4-7-323, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad. 9) B. Anirudh Reddy S/o. Late Deepak Kumar Reddy, R/o. Plot No.3, Green View Enclave, Manovikar Nagar, Boinapally, Secunderabad. 10) K. Papi Reddy, S/o. K.S. Reddy, R/o. H.No.8-2-686/B/S/7, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 11) Smt. K. Jyothi W/o. K. Papi Reddy, R/o. H.No.8-2-686/B/S/7, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 12) Smt.P. Sunitha Reddy W/o.Dr.P. Hamender Reddy, R/o.Plot No.62, Banjara Green Colony, Road No.12, Hyderabad. 13) Kum. P. Manisha Reddy D/o. P. Mahender Reddy, Rep. By his mother and Guardian P. Sunitha Reddy, R/o. Plot No.62, Banjara Green Colony, Road No.12, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR. VEDULA VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SMT. KALPANA EKBOTE Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 6: GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION Counsel for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9: MR. G. MADHUSUDAN REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.10 to 13: MR. D. PRAKASH REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MR.M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Writ Appeal No.1043 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19.1.2001 in WP NO: 11001 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) 1) Mohd. Afroz S/o. Mohd. Yousuf, aged 28 years, R/o.H.No.3-9-60/1, Syed Zalal Guarden, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 2) Mohd. Yousuf S/o. late Nazeer Ahmed, aged 58 years, R/o. H.No.3- 9-60/1, Syed Zalal Guarden, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 3) Mohd. Mushtaq S/o. Mohd. Yousuf, aged 32 years, R/o. H.No. 3-9-60/1, Syed Zalal Guarden, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. ... APPELLANTS AND 1) The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, MCH Buildings, Hyderabad 2) The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.10, (Old Circle No.5), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 3) The Asst. City Planner, Circle No.10, (Old Circle No.5), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 4) The Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,MCh Buildings, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 5) Smt.P. Sunitha Reddy W/o.Dr.P. Hamender Reddy, R/o.Plot No.62, Banjara Green Colony, Road No.12, Hyderabad. 6) Kum. P. Manisha Reddy D/o. P. Mahender Reddy, Rep. By his mother and Guardian P. Sunitha Reddy, R/o. Plot No.62, Banjara Green Colony, Road No.12, Hyderabad. 7) Sri P.Prithvidhar Reddy S/o.P. Manik Reddy, R/o. H.No.H.No.4-7- 323, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad. 8) Smt. P. Bhagya W/o. P. Manik Reddy, R/o. H.No.H.No.4-7-323, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad. 9) B. Anirudh Reddy S/o. Late Deepak Kumar Reddy, R/o. Plot No.3, Green View Enclave, Manovikar Nagar, Boinapally, Secunderabad. 10) K. Papi Reddy, S/o. K.S. Reddy, R/o. H.No.8-2-686/B/S/7, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 11) Smt. K. Jyothi W/o. K. Papi Reddy, R/o. H.No.8-2-686/B/S/7, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR. P.R. BALARAM REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SMT. KALPANA EKBOTE Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 7: NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent Nos.8 to 11: MR. D. PRAKASH REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MR.M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO The Court made the following: ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Shri Anil R. Dave, Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1. As the issues involved in both the appeals are similar, at the request of the learned advocates, they are heard together. 2. The appellants, who are the original petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.25744 of 2008 and 11001 of 2009, have been aggrieved by the orders dated 13.12.2009 of the learned Single Judge rejecting their petitions. 3. The appellants have challenged validity of the permission for building construction granted by respondent Nos.1 to 3 vide permits No.162/76 and 162/77 to respondent Nos.7 to 9 on the ground that the land in respect of which permission was granted did not belong to those, who had sought for the permission, and the land in question belongs to the appellants. 4. After hearing the learned advocates for all the parties, the learned Single Judge, by virtue of the impugned orders, came to the conclusion that disputed questions of fact were involved in the petitions and, therefore, rejected the petitions so as to enable the appellants – original petitioners to approach the competent court. 5. While deciding the petition, the learned Single Judge has made certain observations with regard to certain documents executed by the concerned parties and the deed of compromise arrived at by certain parties, but the learned Single Judge has finally made the following observations: “It is made clear that this Court shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion with regard to the rival claims made by the parties and in case any proceedings are initiated before the competent court, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.” 6. Upon hearing the learned advocates and upon going through some of the documents to which our attention had been drawn by the concerned advocates, we are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. Disputed questions of fact with regard to ownership of land cannot be decided in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, respondent No.3 had to prima facie decide whether the persons, who had submitted an application for permission for putting up construction on the lands in question, were having prima facie title in respect of the said land. It appears that the authority concerned was prima facie of the view that the persons, who had sought permission for putting up construction, were owners of the land in question and, therefore, the permission was granted. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that grant of such a permission would not mean that the person in whose favour such a permission is granted is a rightful owner of the land in question. 7. For the afore-stated reasons, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition so that the concerned parties can approach the competent court for getting their disputes with regard to ownership of the land decided. 8. The learned advocates for the appellants have expressed their apprehension to the fact that the competent court might be influenced by some of the observations made in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. In our opinion, the said apprehension voiced by the learned advocates appearing for the appellants is not well founded for the reason that the learned Single Judge has not made any observation, which might influence the competent court at the time of deciding the dispute among the parties and in the penultimate para of the order, the learned Single Judge has made it clear that the competent court should understand that the High Court had not expressed any opinion with regard to the rival claims made by the parties and the proceedings, if any, initiated by the parties, shall be considered and decided by it in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the order. As a result of the said observation, the competent court would not look at any of the observations made in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and it would decide the issues only on the basis of evidence, which might be adduced by the parties before it. 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeals are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ August 12, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {TRK}