IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10896 of 1999 Between: 1 M/s. Kalpana Kannabiran W/o. Sri Raj Mohan Tella, R/o. 311, Manohar Bhavar, Dwarakapuri Colony, Hyderabad-500 082 2 Sri Raj Mohan Tella S/o. Late Sri T.Ramaiah R/o. 311, Manohar Bhavar, Dwarakapuri Colony, Hyderabad-500 082 ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue Secretariat, Rep. by the Secretary, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, District of Hyderabad, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally Mandal, Secunderabad. 4 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Rep. by the Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.B.NALIN KUMAR Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE (ASSIGNMENTS) Counsel for respondent No.4: MR R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to direct respondent No.4 to receive and consider the application of the petitioners for permission for construction of a building, without reference to the instructions of respondent No.2, in respect of property bearing Municipal No.10-3-30/8 (Plot No.140) in Survey No.74/10, East Maredpally, Secunderabad. Heard Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation-respondent No.4. At the hearing, learned counsel for all the parties submitted that in pursuance of interim order dated 08-02-2000 in W.A.No.61 of 2000, building permission was granted by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioners and that the building was constructed. Ordinarily, the writ petition would have become infructuous considered from the form in which the prayer is made. But while disposing of W.A.No.61 of 2000, the Division Bench directed that interim order dated 08-02-2000 shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is required to be considered and disposed of on merits. In the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that on the basis of the communications given by respondents 2 and 3, respondent No.4 was not receiving the petitioners’ application for granting building permission. The tenor of those communications was that as the property in respect of which the petitioners were seeking building permission belongs to the Government, the petitioners are not entitled to construct a building thereon. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, respondent No.4 is liable to consider the application of the petitioners on the basis of the documents such as sale deed, plan etc., and that it is not open to the Corporation to be guided by the instructions issued by the Revenue Department. In this regard, the judgment of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District and another [1] assumes relevance. A similar contention has been upheld by this Court in the said judgment by holding as under:- “The Commissioner is required to discharge his statutory duty/obligation and consider each of the applications in accordance with law. Of course, the Commissioner has to consider the objections, if any, raised for grant of permission. But, an objection raised by a member of the Committee itself would not be enough to reject the application for grant of permission. The Commissioner is required to make pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicants. The applications for grant of permission cannot be rejected solely on the basis of TSLR entries. After all, the decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title upon the applicant, nor it would take away the rights of the objector (s), whether the Government or any individual, for asserting their right, title and interest in the land in respect of which permission has been granted and dispute the title in any manner known to law. Similarly, the Commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. All that the Commissioner required to do is to ﬁnd out prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicant and obviously such consideration is conﬁned to only for the purposes of granting permission and nothing more”. From this perspective, I am of the view that respondent No.4 ought to have considered the application ﬁled by the petitioners and taken a decision after considering the objections raised by respondents 2 and 3. As noted above, in pursuance of the interim order granted by the Division Bench of this Court, building permission has already been granted in favour of the petitioners and construction of a building has been made. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the State Government ﬁled a complaint before the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short “the Act”) in respect of the land in question, though the petitioners are not made parties to the said case, which was registered as LGC No.167 of 1998, and the same is pending. Sri B.Nalin Kumar also brought to my notice that the State Government recently issued G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16- 02-2008 providing for regularization of the unauthorized occupation of the Government lands and that the petitioners made an application on 26-06-2008, seeking regularization. In view of these subsequent events, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondents shall not interfere with the building constructed by the petitioners until such time as their application for regularization has been disposed of under G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16-02-2008 and the issue relating to the title over the property in question is conclusively adjudicated by the Special Court under the Act. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.24336 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 2nd September, 2008 vrn [1] 2001 (3) ALD 600