THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23857 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner submitted an application to the Suryapeta Municipality, the 1st respondent herein, with a request to accord permission to construct one room over a plot of land in survey Nos.281/E1, 281 and 287 of B.Madharam Revenue Village, which is within the limits of the Municipality. Through a notice, dated 09.09.2009, the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that, in respect of the same plot, applications were received from two other individuals, by name Macherla Kavitha and Sankepally Raghava Reddy, and unless the dispute among themselves is resolved, the application cannot be considered. The petitioner states that, having waited for quite some time, she has constructed a temporary room to protect the cement and other material, and that the 1st respondent issued a notice, dated 27.10.2009, requiring her to remove the same. She contends that a deemed permission has accrued to her and the 1st respondent cannot require her to remove the structure. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. It is not in dispute that, in respect of the same plot as many as three applications were received, seeking permission to construct. Naturally, the 1st respondent has required the petitioner and other applicants to approach the Civil Court and resolve their disputes. No exception can be taken to such a course. The petitioner constructed a temporary shed, over the site. Though it is urged that the construction is made on the strength of deemed permission, it is not stated with precession, as to when the application was presented and whether the petitioner has issued notice before commencement of the construction. Further, the room is said to be temporary in nature. Having made an application seeking permission to construct the room, the petitioner ought to have waited till the appropriate orders are passed; more so, when there is serious dispute among various parties. The petitioner is not able to point out the legal, or factual defect, in the impugned notice. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting two weeks time, from today, for the petitioner, to remove the temporary shed. It shall be open to her to renew her request for grant of permission, after the dispute among herself, the 2nd respondent and others is resolved, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.22-12-2009. GJ