IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6818 of 2009 Between: Dasari Mangamma W/o. Late Venkateswarlu R/o. Kodamudi Road Railpeta Nidabrolu (Ponnur) Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Chief Commissioner, Tank Bund Hyderabad. 2 Additional Commissioner (Planning) Head Office, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 Chief City Planner, Head Office Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4 G.V. Krishnaiah W/o. Late G. Veeraiah R/o. Shivalayam Veedhi, Nidubrolu (Ponnuru) Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in considering the application of 4th Respondent for construction of building in premises NO. 8-2-472/1, Road No.1 Opp. GVK Mall, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad in file No., 0131/CSC/TP-10/CZ/09 as illegal, arbitrary and violating of principles of natural justice and also Art 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to stop permission in respect of premises NO. 8-2-472/1, Road No.1 Opp. GVK Mall, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SRINIVAS DAMMALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : Order: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the action of respondents 1 to 3 in trying to grant permission for construction of building in premises No.8-2-472/1, Road No.1, Opp. GVK Mall, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad in favour of respondent No.4 without considering his objections. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. It is the case of the petitioner that herself and one G.Veeraiah are the absolute owners of 2000 square yards of house site and house therein with half share each, in the premises in question but the 4th respondent, in collusion with some third parties, has made an application to respondents 1 to 3 herein seeking permission for construction of building in the entire property by mentioning that they are the absolute owners of the total extent and the said application was taken on file by the respondents in File No.0131/CSC/TP-10/CZ/09. On coming to know of the same, she submitted an application to respondents 1 to 3 on 9.3.2009 requesting them not to consider the said application by submitting all documentary evidence to establish her title over the subject property. It is also the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent has submitted certain documents before respondents 1 to 3 by forging her signature and she is taking steps to initiate criminal action against him for forging her signature and for submitting false documents. But respondents 1 to 3, without considering her objections, forwarded the file for approval of the plans. Therefore, she again made an application on 16.3.2009 bringing to the notice of respondents 1 to 3 about the dispute in regard to the title of the 4th respondent in regard to the subject property and requested them not to grant any permission in favour of respondent No.4. Simultaneously, she along with her son made an application on 16.3.2009 under Right to Information Act seeking copies of all the documents furnished by the 4th respondent herein along with building application but so far no action has been initiated by the authorities to furnish the said documents and on the other hand, the authorities are moving fast to release the plans and hence this writ petition. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation on instructions, submits that so far the respondent authorities have not granted permission to the 4th respondent and that they will take into consideration the objections submitted by the petitioner before granting permission to the 4th respondent. It is also stated that they will furnish the documents sought for by the petitioner under Right to Information Act. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent also submits that he has no objection for considering the objections raised by the petitioner before granting building construction permission. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 3 to consider the objections raised by the petitioner before granting building permission in favour of the 4th respondent and also furnish the documents sought for by the petitioner to enable her to substantiate her case. They are also directed to give personal hearing to the 4th respondent in case his application seeking building permission is going to be rejected. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.6.4.2009 msv