HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. No. 11683 of 2009 THURSDAY THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 Between: M. Ravi Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND Kurnool Municipal Corpn., Kurnool And two others .....RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed assailing the action of the 2nd respondent-City Planner in rejecting the L.R.S. application dated 30.04.2008 of the petitioner, by his Endorsement dated 15.04.2009. The petitioner asserts that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Plot Nos.21 & 22 (P) in Sy.No.126 situated at Srinivasa Nagar, Kurnool having purchased the same under a Registered Sale Deed dated 18.04.2006 from one S.V.Nagireddy and two others. While so, the petitioner submitted an Application dated 30.04.2008 with all relevant documents under Land Regulation Scheme, but the 2nd respondent, by his Endorsement dated 15.04.2009, rejected the application on the ground that the 3rd respondent-District Collector, vide his letter dated 22.11.2006, gave instructions to take immediate action, as recommended by the House Committee in its interim report on the Christian Properties as per the instructions of C.C.L.A., A.P., Hyderabad. The action of the 2nd respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Kurnool Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 3rd respondent and perused the material placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District and Another[1] wherein it is held as follows: “The Commissioner is required to make pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicants. The applications for grant of permission cannot be rejected solely on the basis of TSLR entries. After all, the decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title upon the applicant, nor it would take away the rights of the objection(s) whether the Govt. or any individual, for asserting their right, title and interest in the land in respect of which permission has been granted and dispute the title in any manner known to law. Similarly, the Commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. All that the Commissioner required to do is to find out prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicant and obviously such consideration is confined to only for the purpose of granting permission and nothing more.” The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the writ appeal in W.A. No. 1096 of 2001 filed against the above decision was disposed of by a Division Bench observing that the Commissioner while acting under Section 429(1)(a) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act read with relevant building byelaws, acts as a statutory authority and required to make decision on relevant material and facts and it is not legally permissible for such authority to base its decisions only on one piece of relevant material and to exclude other relevant material. Relying on the above decision, he contended that the Commissioner cannot adjudicate title disputes, and prayed that the impugned Endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent may be quashed. The learned Standing Counsel has fairly conceded that as per the judgment of the Division Bench as stated supra, the 1st respondent-Corporation cannot decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. Hence, following the above order, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the Endorsement dated 15.04.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent-City Planner, Kurnool. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 20th August, 2009 bcj [1] 2001(3) ALT 200