THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 9963 of 2010 Oral order: The petitioner states that he and respondent No.5, who constitute partnership in the name and style of M/s. Kohinoor Estates, purchased an extent of 613.00 Sq. yds., bearing H.No. 3-6-307, Hyderguda, Hyderabad, under an agreement of sale dated 18.03.1988. That the property covered by the agreement of sale, was subject matter of dispute in a suit for partition in O.S. No. 1934 of 1987, and that the property in question in the partition suit, under compromise memo, fell to the share of respondent No.3. The petitioner states that he has invested amounts for purchase of the land in question, but respondent No.5 in connivance with respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are trying to obtain building permission without his knowledge, and in the event permission is granted, without considering his objections, he will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Hence, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to grant any building permission to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for construction in the land in question. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As can be seen from the pleading of the petitioner, there appear to be civil dispute, particularly relating to title, in respect of the land in question, between him and respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot adjudicate title disputes between parties. As on today, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not granted any building permission to construct a building in the land in question. The petitioner merely on apprehension that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would sanction building permission to respondent Nos. 3 to 5, has filed the present writ petition. This Court cannot direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to decide as to who is the owner of the land in question and grant permission. If the petitioner is joint owner of the property along with respondent No.5, and if respondent No.5, without his knowledge in connivance with respondent Nos. 3 and 4, is trying to obtain building permission, and make constructions affecting his rights in the land, his remedy is to approach the competent civil Court and seek appropriate reliefs against respondent Nos. 3 and 5. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 31st August, 2010 KSR