IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 25800 of 2006 Between: Sri Gutam Raj Reddy S/o.G.Malla Reddy R/o.Waddepally, Hanamakonda Mandal Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Municipal Corporation of Warangal, rep.by its Commissioner, Warangal, warangal District 2 City Planner, office of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Warangal, Warangal 3 Smt.Chidurala Rani W/o.Sri Chidurala Ravinder Reddy R/o.2-10-141, Waddepally village, Hanamakonda Mandal, Warangal District . ....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or otherwise declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 on the representations of the petitioners dated 10.7.2006, 28.7.2006 7.8.2006 and 10.10.2006 as illegal, ultra vires the powers of the respondents 1 and 2 and thereby direct the respondents 1 and 2 to implement immediate action as per proceedings of the commissioner, Warangal Municipality dated 2.8.2004 (Annexure II) and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M PAPA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1& 2: MR.V.DURGA NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR.Y.RAMARAO The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.25800 of 2006 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in not dealing with the representations said to have been submitted by the petitioner on 10-07- 2006, 28-7-2006, 07-08-2006 and 10-10-2006 as illegal. Through those representations the writ petitioner has been asking the first respondent- Municipal Corporation of Warangal to give effect to the order passed by them on 02-08-2004 wherein the first respondent Municipal Corporation had cancelled the building permission accorded in favour of the third respondent herein through the proceedings Roc.No.GI/9916/04 dated 27- 05-2004 marked at page 16 of the paper book. When the third respondent instituted W.P.No.13954 of 2004 calling in question the validity of those proceedings dated 02-08-2004, this court by its judgment dated 20-8-2004 while dismissing the writ petition had made it clear that it is open to the petitioner therein i.e. the third respondent herein, to produce all the documents and obtain appropriate orders from the first respondent Municipal Corporation. The third respondent now represents that she has produced the necessary documents establishing her right, title and interest over the parcel of the land before the first respondent Municipal Corporation on 07-07-2005 and that the first respondent Corporation is yet to decide the said controversy. 2. I heard Sri M.Papa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.Durga Nageshwara Rao, learned standing counsel for the first respondent Municipal Corporation and Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the third respondent. 3. The entire controversy centers around the right, title and interest over the land in question and there is parallel claim made by both the petitioner as well as the third respondent. On 02-08-2004 the first respondent Municipal Corporation had decided the matter holding that the third respondent could not establish her title to the said property. Now the third respondent asserts that the necessary documents have been produced in that regard before the first respondent Municipal Corporation as on 07-07- 2005. Unless the said controversy is decided by the first respondent Municipal Corporation, question of dealing with the series of representations said to have been submitted by the writ petitioner from 10th July,2006 onwards cannot be entertained. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that in the process of delay in dealing with the entire matter, the petitioner is put to a serious and irreparable loss and injury inasmuch as the structures got constructed by the third respondent are standing thereon and when once the third respondent’s title or interest in the said land is determined one way or the other, it becomes easy to crystallize the interest of both the parties once for all. For all these reasons, it is only appropriate that the first respondent Municipal Corporation should deal with and decide the representation said to have been submitted by the third respondent on 07.07.2005 and also the representations said to have been submitted by the writ petitioner on 10th July,2006 onwards together at one stroke. It is therefore, appropriate for the first respondent Municipal Corporation to make available a set of representations submitted by both sides to each other and hear them and conclude the issue by passing a speaking order at the earliest. The representations together with the enclosed documents sought to be relied upon by both sides having already been exchanged in this writ petition, the Municipal Corporation of Warangal, will decide this matter as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a maximum period of three months from today. 4. With these, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 12-03-2008 Stp To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}