THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.A.No.1182 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and also Smt.V.Preethi Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-authority. At their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner, who by way of this appeal challenges the order of dismissal passed in the Writ Petition, he ﬁled the WP assailing the action of the ﬁrst respondent dated 17.11.2007, whereunder the application ﬁled by him for the approval of the lay out for an extent of Ac.1.18 cents in S.No.57 P Vadlapudi village, Gajuvaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District was rejected on the ground that two suits have been ﬁled by some third parties in O.S.No.390 of 2007 and O.S.No.386 of 2007 and further that the appellant has failed to establish possessory right and legal right to accord the approval to the said lay out. The main ground alleged in the writ petition was that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the land covered under the agreement of sale and therefore 1st respondent is not justiﬁed in rejecting the application. However, after ﬁling of the counter-aﬃdavit by the respondents herein, the learned Single Judge by taking note of the fact that the petitioner/appellant is only an agreement holder and lot of correspondence went on between him and the vendors and ultimately the General Power of Attorney executed in his favour came to be cancelled and thus the petitioner failed to establish in a proper claim, dismissed the writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and also perused the material. The appellant claims to be the agreement holder in respect of the land in question. According to him, he purchased the land from one Keta Lakshmi Thalli and paid sale consideration and obtained registered General Power of Attorney, dated 6.9.1992 whereas it is the case of the respondents that the said GPA was cancelled on 21.9.2007. On a perusal of the order of rejection, dated 17.11.2007, it is apparent that there was no reference therein as to any dispute between the petitioner and his vendor or as to any correspondence between them in respect of the cancellation of the GPA executed in favour of the petitioner. The only ground mentioned in the order, dated 17.11.2007 for rejecting the application of the petitioner is of ﬁling of the suits by two diﬀerent persons viz., O.S.Nos.390 of 2007 and O.S.No.386 of 2007. Be that as it may. Mere ﬁling of suits by a third party cannot be a ground for rejection of application for approval of lay out inasmuch as there is no dispute between the petitioner and his vendor in respect of the land in question. Therefore, there is no impediment in considering the application of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, We feel it a ﬁt case wherein the matter can be remanded back for reconsideration in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order of the 1st respondent dated 17.11.2007 and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent to reconsider and pass appropriate orders, on merits, after aﬀording an opportunity to the writ petitioner, in accordance with law. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 29th October, 2008. PNV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.A.No.1182 of 2008 29th October, 2008