THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.876 of 2006 Dated:12.11.2010 Between: Armoor Bhoomaiah. …Petitioner and The Koratla Municipality, Rep.by its Commissioner, Koratla, Karimnagar District, And another. …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.876 of 2006 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the first respondent – Municipality, in not taking any action against the illegal construction of the second respondent in the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 in survey No.1233 of Koratla Village and Mandal in Karimnagar District, based on the petitioner’s representation dated 06.01.2006, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. A consequential direction is sought to the first respondent to take action as per law against the second respondent regarding the illegal construction made by him on the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 in survey No.1233 of Koratla Village and Mandal. Sri N.Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would request this Court to post this writ petition along with W.P.No.645 of 2009 and A.S.No.218 of 2007. Learned Counsel would submit that W.P.No.645 of 2009 was filed questioning the validation of the sale deed; the respondent had filed O.S.No.13 of 2002 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction; the said suit was dismissed; and, pursuant thereto, the second respondent had filed A.S.No.218 of 2007 and an interim order of injunction was passed therein. Learned Counsel would submit that both W.P.No.645 of 2009 and A.S.No.218 of 2007 are pending on the file of this Court and, as such, this writ petition should be listed along with the other writ petition, and the first appeal. Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned Counsel for the second respondent, would submit that, even prior to the filing of O.S.No.13 of 2002, the second respondent had transferred the entire extent of Ac.1.00 of land in favour of thirteen individuals by way of registered sale deeds; it is these thirteen individuals who had obtained permission from the Municipality for construction and, in the absence of these thirteen individuals being arrayed as respondents in the writ petition, no relief could be granted in the petitioner’s favour. Smt. Shanthi Neelam, learned Counsel for the first respondent – Municipality, would refer to the counter affidavit in support of her submission that the second respondent had alienated the entire extent of land as early as in the years 1986 and 1987 and the thirteen individuals, who had obtained permission, were not arrayed as respondents herein. Sri N.Subba Rao would, however, contend that since no right accrues in favour of these thirteen individuals as they had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit; in case the first appeal is dismissed, they would not have title over the land in question; consequently they would be disentitled from making construction thereupon; and, hence, the first respondent ought to be directed to take action against them for illegal construction made by them over the property which belongs to the petitioner. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to go into the question of title, or lis pendens, in as much as the relief sought for by the petitioner is for the respondent – Municipality to take action in accordance with law pursuant to the representation made by him on 06.01.2006. Without going into the merits, and the rival contentions urged before this Court, it would suffice for the disposal of the writ petition if the respondent – Municipality is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation, and pass necessary orders thereupon in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the rival contentions with regards their title, or the right of the persons concerned, (in whose favour the land has allegedly been sold by way of registered sale deeds), to make construction on the land in question or to obtain permission from the Municipal Corporation. The first respondent – Municipality, shall pass orders on the petitioner’s representation, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 12.11.2010 vs