IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 6137 of 2008 Between: Kumari Chalasani Bhuvaneswari D/o.Chalasani Nagendra Babu Smt.Chalasani Samatha, R/o.Flat No.34, Road No.1, Municipal Employees colony,Opp:Pinnamaneni Polyclinic Road, Vijayawada Krishna District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner,Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Vijayawada,Krishna District 2 Sri Chalasani Nagendra Babu S/o.Radha Krishna Rao Resident of Dr.No.32-4-8 Praja Shakti Nagar,Moghalrajapuram,Vijayawada Krishna District 3 Sri Chalasani Rakesh S/o.Radha Krishna Rao Resident of Dr.No.32-4-8 Praja Shakti Nagar,Moghalrajapuram,Vijayawada Krishna 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in making ready every thing in granting plan for construction of apartments at Door No.32-4-8 Praja Shakti Nagar, Moghalarajapuram ,Vijayawada, Krishna District submitted by the respondents 2 and 3 as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st respondent not to sanction any plan on the application made by the respondents 2 and 3 for the purpose of construction of flats at Door No.32-4-8 Praja Shakti Nagar, Moghalarajapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District forthwith pending disposal of the suit. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for Respondent No.1: Smt. G.Jhansi The Court made the following O R D E R: Heard Sri N. Ravi Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. G. Jhansi, the learned counsel for the respondent- Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. The writ petitioner is the daughter of respondent No.2. It is pointed out that in view of certain differences that have cropped up between her parents, they are living separately for the past few months and that the petitioner has already instituted a civil suit O.S.No. 143 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada seeking partition of the joint family property and for delivery of one-fourth share. The said suit is being contested by the defendants therein. The controversy in this writ petition centers around the action of the Municipal Corporation in entertaining the application submitted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for erecting a building on the joint family property, without the consent of the petitioner, who is asserted to be a co-owner in her capacity as a coparcener of a Hindu undivided joint family. However, the right, title or interest of the writ petitioner in this particular piece of property is incapable of being verified or checked up by the Corporation, in the absence of any crystallized right. It would have been a different matter, if the civil suit instituted by the writ petitioner had already been decreed and a specified portion in the joint family property had been allocated by metes and bounds in her favour and if that particular parcel of land is sought to be developed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 without her consent, but for the present, the right, title or interest of the petitioner has not yet been specifically crystallized with regard to metes and bounds in the joint family property. It is, therefore, appropriate that the petitioner shall work out all the equitable remedies that would be available to her against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are also incidentally the defendants to O.S.No.143 of 2007. It is needless to observe that the civil Court, while trying the civil suit and passing appropriate judgment and decree therein, will bear in mind these and other related aspects, including the development of the ancestral property, which is sought to be undertaken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein without the consent of the petitioner. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 25th March 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}