THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 9490 OF 2010 DATE: 28.07.2010 Between: Smt. Nirmala ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. By its Zonal Commissioner, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 9490 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.2 admeasuring 388 sq.yards situated at Tilak Nagar, Golnaka, Amberpet, Hyderabad. The 4th respondent herein filed O.S.No.589 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for a declaration that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the above said property and also for perpetual injunction on the basis of two receipts dated 11.12.1997 and 26.01.1978 allegedly executed by the father of the petitioner and the petitioner respectively. Along with the suit the 4th respondent filed I.A.No.3550 of 2009 for temporary injunction. The said petition was opposed by the petitioner herein and after hearing both the parties by order dated 26.11.2009 I.A.No.3550 of 2009 was dismissed holding that no prima facie case or possession over the property in question was made out. Against the said order the 4th respondent preferred C.M.A.No.1261 of 2009 before this Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, the writ petitioner made an application dated 12.04.2010 before the 1st respondent- Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation seeking permission to construct a compound wall with a room in the plot in question. The said application was rejected by the 1st respondent by order dated 13.04.2010 on the ground that O.S.No.589 of 2009 was pending between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and asking the petitioner to settle the matter in the Court of law and inform the same to the 1st respondent so as to take further necessary action. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed contending inter alia that mere pendency of the suit is no ground for rejecting the building permission. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to my notice that during the pendency of this writ petition, C.M.A.No.1261 of 2009 filed by the 4th respondent against the order dated 26.11.2009 in I.A.No.3550 of 2009 was dismissed by this Court by order dated 06.07.2010. A copy of the said order has been placed before this Court and it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion from the said order. “In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., the petitioner therein has to satisfy the Court as to the existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and loss in the event of the injunction being denied. In the instance case, admittedly, the suit is filed on the basis of an oral sale. Except that the two receipts said to have been issued by the respondent are filed, no other substantial proof as to the transaction was placed before the trial Court. The respondent flatly denied the signature on the receipts. In a matter of this nature, it is too difficult to grant the relief of temporary injunction. Since the appellant did not dispute the ownership of the respondent, the possession is supposed to be with her, till it is established to be otherwise. Neither the prima facie case nor the balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant. The trial Court has undertaken extensive discussion on the relevant aspects and arrived at a proper conclusion. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. It is however directed that any activity undertaken by the respondent, including construction, shall be without prejudice to the right of the appellant and in the event of the suit being decreed, the respondent shall not claim any equities. There shall be no order as to costs.” However, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent while placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in V.Jaya Prakash vs. Commissioner of Municipality, Khapra Municipality, Khapra, R.R.District and another [1]vehemently contended that having regard to the fact that the dispute as to title of the property in question is the subject matter of a pending suit, the 1st respondent has only postponed the decision and the same cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed by the 4th respondent contending that he is the owner and possessor of the plot in question having purchased the same for valuable consideration from the writ petitioner on 26.01.1978. It is also contended that he was put possession and though he could not obtain the registered conveyance deed, he had perfected his title by adverse possession. These all are the aspects, which require consideration in O.S.No.589 of 2009 pending before the competent civil Court and it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express any opinion as to the rival claims made by the parties with regard to title. So far as the building permission sought by the writ petitioner is concerned, though the main suit is pending, the 4th respondent’s application for temporary injunction was dismissed and the same was upheld by this Court in C.M.A.No.1261 of 2009. As noticed above, this Court while dismissing C.M.A.No.1261 of 2009 directed that any activity undertaken by the writ petitioner (respondent therein), including construction, should be without prejudice to the right of the 4th respondent (appellant therein) and in the event of the suit being decreed, the writ petitioner (respondent therein) shall not claim any equities. Having regard to the said order wherein it was made clear that even if any constructions are made by the writ petitioner the same is at her own risk and in case the suit is decreed she cannot claim any equities, the rejection of the petitioner’s application for building permission on the ground of the pendency of civil suit is not warranted. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law without having regard to the pendency of O.S.No.589 of 2009 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 28.07.2010 Ivd [1] 2006(6) ALT 221