THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 7988 OF 2011 O R D E R: 1. This writ petition is filed to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not processing application for regularization made in application No.BPS/6085/MKJ/N2/2008 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct them to forthwith process the said application filed for regularization. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: Petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. It purchased land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.9.15 guntas in survey no.358/1 and 358/2 of Kapra Village, Keesara Mandal (now part of GHMC) under an agreement of sale dated 22.04.1975 and in pursuance of the same, substantial sale consideration was paid and possession was delivered to the petitioner society and it was put in possession of subject land and mutation was effected in revenue records. Thereafter, as the land was brought under the supervision of Wakf Board, permission to register execution of sale deed was required from the Government and the sale deed was not executed, and a suit for specific performance of sale was filed to enforce the agreement of sale. Thereafter, several litigations took place in respect of the said property. The petitioner filed several complaints to respondents 1 and 2 in regard to illegal constructions raised in the subject land and requested for demolition of said constructions as the encroachers were not holding any title to the subject land and made constructions without any valid sanctioned plan or permission. Initially, the respondents 1 and 2 issued notices under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and since no reply was given on the said notice, the authorities issued notice under Section 636 of the Act directing the encroachers to remove the construction on the subject land. At this juncture, the third respondent filed Writ Petition No.11581 of 2008 challenging the notice issued by the authorities on the ground that his application for regularization was pending consideration before the authorities, which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the authorities to consider the application filed by the petitioner therein and pass appropriate orders if otherwise there is no impediment, and pending disposal of the application, status quo existing as on that day with regard to the structures was ordered to be maintained. Though the petitioner herein filed petition to implead the respondent no.3 herein as a party to a Land Grabbing Case filed by it, the petitioner herein is not made a party to the said Writ Petition. The petitioners therein have no locus standi to seek regularisation since they grabbed the land of the petitioner and raised constructions. The petitioner approached the authorities and requested to dispose of the application No.BPS/6085/MKJ/N2/2008 filed by the third respondent. But, for the reasons best known to them, they are not taking any action, which is causing prejudice to the rights of petitioner society. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The third respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ affidavit and stating inter alia as follows: Himself and five others purchased 5300 square yards of land in survey no.358/1 and 358/2, which originally belonged to Raj Pramuk, under registered documents, and thereafter, a function hall was constructed by him. Municipality allotted H.Nos. 42- 736/15, 16 and 17 to the said property. The writ petitioner has no title over the property as its claim is based on the agreement of sale dated 22.04.1975 alleged to have been executed by a person who has no title. Mere mutation in revenue records does not confer any title. The petitioner suppressed the fact that in WPMP No.37536 of 2008 in WP No.28681 of 2008, this Court suspended G.O. Ms. No.1329, dated 03.12.1985 which is issued permitting wakf board to sell Ac.9.15 guntas of land. The petitioner, having failed to get orders before the Land Grabbing Court, filed the writ petition suppressing the several material facts, to some how throw out the third respondent from the said land. The petitioner society is no way connected with the issue of regularization of constructions and it is between the official respondents and the third respondent. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question having purchased the same in pursuance of an agreement of sale and obtained delivery of the same having paid entire sale consideration, and that the third respondent encroached a portion of the said land and made constructions illegally without permission and made application for regularization of the said constructions, and as the said application is not being disposed of by the official respondents, it is causing prejudice to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that the petitioner filed an application before Land Grabbing Court to declare the third respondent along with others as land grabbers claiming title and possession over the property, and that all further proceedings in the Land Grabbing Case were stayed by a Division Bench of this Court and that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition. 7. The learned counsel for the third respondent contended that the petitioner has no valid title over the property in question and that it has no locus standi to seek the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition as it is a matter between the third respondent and the official respondents. 8. The petitioner claims to be owner of the property in question having purchased the same in pursuance of an agreement of sale and got delivery of the same. Admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted the application in question for regularization. The application No.BPS/6085/MKJ/N2/2008 has been submitted by the third respondent. Therefore, prima facie the petitioner has no locus standi to seek a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to process the application for regularization made by the third respondent. It is stated that the petitioner got a vested right because of the agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession and payment of total sale consideration. Merely because the possession was delivered to the petitioner and total consideration was paid under the agreement of sale, it does not confer any valid title to the property in favour of the petitioner. So long as the agreement of sale is not transformed into a regular sale deed, it does not confer any title on the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner failed to show that it has got title to the property in question. Even otherwise, that aspect of the case has to be decided in the Land Grabbing Case in view of the fact that the petitioner is claiming right, title and interest over the property, which is pending in the Land Grabbing Case. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek any relief with regard to the question of consideration of the BPS application filed by the third respondent. 9. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner under law. No costs. ________________ (K.C.BHANU, J.) 29.12.2011 DRK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 7988 OF 2011 Date: 29.12.2011