THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.26958 of 2010 Dated: 24-11-2010 Between: Smt. A.Sunanda …Petitioner and The Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal District and others …Respondents Oral Order: Heard Sri K.Ashok Reddy for the writ petitioner and Sri G.V.Shivaji for respondents 2 and 3. This writ petition has been instituted for declaring the show- cause notice dated 21-10-2010 issued by the Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal District to the writ petitioner as bad in law. Through the impugned notice dated 21-10-2010 the Warangal Municipal Corporation called upon the writ petitioner to submit her explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the said show-cause notice as to why the building permission granted in favour of the writ petitioner be not cancelled/kept in abeyance. The Municipal Corporation has taken this measure in view of the objection raised on 18-10-2010 by Sri N.Babu Rao and Sri D.Chandramohan, claiming parallel title to the site in question. In view of the order proposed to be passed by me, I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to refer to the pleadings set up in this case. The writ petitioner is claiming right, title and interest over a parcel of land said to be situated in Sy.No. 106 of Waddepally village, forming part of the Municipal Corporation limits of Warangal. Respondents 2 and 3 herein are also claiming right, title and interest over a parcel of the land in Sy.No. 115. Therefore, there is a dispute/crisis about identification and location of the respective sites of the petitioners on one hand and respondents 2 and 3 on the other. The said dispute perhaps can better be redressed only if both the parties approach the revenue establishment in its Survey and Land Records department. Any such survey conducted and carried out in the presence of the respective parties, perhaps would be ideal to fix the boundaries of the site in question and also to identify whether it falls within Sy.Nos. 106 or 115 of Waddepally village. However, the writ petitioner has drawn a detailed explanation on 28-10-2010 and filed the same before the Municipal Commissioner of Warangal Municipal Corporation, but the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation Sri V.Durga Nageshwar Rao would submit that the Municipal Corporation cannot adjudicate upon right, title and interest of one party or the other over a parcel of land. The local bodies do not have any such adjudicatory power. If there is prima facie evidence before it that the applicant has a subsisting right, title and interest over any parcel of land over which a building is sought to be constructed the local body concerned can grant such building permission. If the local body has got any doubt as to the right, title and interest of the applicant over a parcel of the land, they may decline to grant building permission and refer the parties for securing adjudication of their rival claims through the process of Civil Court concerned. It is therefore only appropriate that the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation should be granted the liberty to deal with the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 28-10-2010 and the same may be appropriately dealt with, within a period of (30) days from the date of receipt of this order. However, it is made clear that it is open to the writ petitioner and or respondents 2 and 3 to approach the revenue establishment and their Survey and Land Records department and secure identification of their respective lands over which they are claiming title and make available any such report for consideration of the 1st respondent- Municipal Corporation. Till further orders are passed by the Municipal Corporation, Warangal, neither the petitioner herein nor respondents 2 and 3 shall not deal with the property in question for undertaking any developmental activity thereon. Both the parties are refrained from making any construction in the said site. But however, if there is any construction material lying at the site, it is open to the parties to protect it appropriately. The writ petition has been disposed of. No costs. __________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 24th November, 2010 GRR