THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28951 of 2009 ORDER: Respondent No.5 is the owner of property bearing H.No.5-8-597, Abids, Hyderabad admeasuring 2350 square yards. Respondent No.6 is her daughter. Both of them are said to have entrusted their property to respondent No.7 for construction. An application was submitted to respondent No.1 for according sanction to construct a multistoried complex. Permission was accorded on 03.10.2009. The petitioners are sons of late Syed Abdul Ali Khan. According to them, respondent No.5 made an oral gift in favour of their father in respect of the property to an extent of 580 square yards together with an existing old building. They challenge the permission accorded by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7. On behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 7, a counter-affidavit is filed. The assertion of the petitioners to title through oral gift is totally denied. It is stated that respondent No.5 never gifted the property in favour of any one. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 placed copies of registered sale deeds before respondent No.1 while seeking permission to construct. Permission was accorded after due verification. There is no dispute that the petitioners are in possession of a portion of the property on the southern side of the entire premises. Even assuming that there is any oral gift in their favour, the petitioners have to establish in a Court of law as to the exact extent that is said to have been gifted to them. In the absence of a written document, it is too difficult to accept that any particular area was gifted to them. The petitioners do not have any immediate threat inasmuch as the proposed construction is not at all in the area in which they are living. The question as to how the open area between the proposed construction and the portion in which the petitioners are living must be treated, can be determined by a Court of law, in case the petitioners approach it. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies in a civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.02.2011 Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl