THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11228 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of premises bearing No.3-6-99, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad on the basis of a purchase made by him on 25.10.1999. It is stated that respondent No.3 secured possession of the said premises through Bailiff on the basis of an order passed in O.S.No.314 of 1988 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner is said to have filed a claim petition for restoration of the possession and that the same is pending. While the claim petition filed by the petitioner is pending, respondent No.3 gifted the said property in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6. They, in turn, approached the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) and obtained permission in the year 2008 for construction. On coming to know the same, the petitioner made a representation, dated 16.05.2008, to the Corporation with a request to cancel the permission. His grievance is that the Corporation did not take any steps on his representation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. Admittedly, the petitioner parted with the possession of the property as a consequence of the orders passed in a suit. The nature thereof is not immediately before this Court. The petitioner has already filed a claim petition seeking restoration of his possession. It may be true that permission was accorded to respondent Nos.4 to 6 at a time when the claim petition of the petitioner was pending. However, mere pendency of such an application is not a bar for the Corporation to accord permission. The petitioner can seek cancellation of permission or restoration of possession of the property as and when the relief is granted to him by the Court concerned. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the permission accorded in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6 shall be subject to the outcome of the claim petition that is filed by the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent No.3. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.03.2011 kdl