IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.4504 of 2002 Between: K.Srinivas Rao ..... PETITIONERS AND 1.The Jagtial Municipality, rep. By its Commissioner, Jagtial, Karimnagar district and another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.Sudarshan Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.S.Nageswar Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2: GP for Revenue The Court made the following : ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Notice, dated 21-07-1998, issued in Proceedings No.698/C1/98, by respondent No.1- Commissioner, Jagtial Municipality, refusing his claim for grant of building permission in premises No.7-6-218/1 situated in Survey No.465 of Mothe Village, Jagtial Mandal, Karimnagar District, on the ground that there is a dispute with regard to the said land and that the ownership thereof is vested with respondent No.2-Mandal Revenue Officer. Petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring 7 guntas 34 ½ square yards covered by Survey No.465 of Mote Village within the municipal limits of Jagtial Municipality in Karimnagar District. It is his case that the said piece of land has fallen to his share in a family partition of total land admeasuring 16 guntas 17 square yards between himself, his father and brother. The grievance of the petitioner is that though there is no dispute with regard to the land in question, when he applied for grant of building permission as contemplated under the provisions of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, the impugned order refusing his claim was passed stating that there is a dispute pending therewith. No counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.1- Commissioner. Respondent No.2-Mandal Revenue Officer has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the land in question is Kairathi Inam; that the occupants of the said land have submitted an application before the Sub-Collector, Jagtial, to issue occupancy certificates to them as per the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and that the said claim was negatived by the Sub-Collector, Jagtial, vide proceedings No.H/490/96, dated 02-02-1996. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-Municipality. It is the settled legal position that when an application for grant of building permission is filed, the same has to be considered with reference to the documents filed along with such application. When it is the case of the petitioner that no dispute with regard to the land in question is pending, rejection of his application merely on the basis of an application filed by the third parties claiming occupancy rights thereon is unsustainable as the said plea of the third parties has already been negatived by the concerned Sub- Collector, Jagtial, vide proceedings, dated 02-02-1996. Inasmuch as the impugned notice did not indicate valid reason for rejection of the building permission as sought for by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to set aside the same and direct respondent No.1-Commissioner to consider the matter afresh, if not already done. For the aforesaid reasons, Notice, dated 21-07-1998, issued in Proceedings No.698/C1/98, is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the petitioner’s application for grant of building permission afresh, in accordance with law, basing on the documents to be filed by him in support of his claim of title and possession over the land in question. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) 11th August, 2009 lur