IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18754 of 2011 Between: S. Satya Kumar & another. … Petitioners And Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority Rep., by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy Counsel for respondent No.1: Smt. V. Preethi Reddy Counsel for respondents 2&3: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18754 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in considering the petitioners’ representation, dated 03.01.2011, before considering approval of layout in respect of land admeasuring Ac.12.00 of Lagisettivanipalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the abovementioned land. They averred that they have succeeded to the said property from their paternal grandmother late Smt. S.Ramulamma under a registered Will, dated 22.06.1991, along with Sri S.L.V. Satya Kumar and Sri S. Bhavani Shankar, sons of the petitioners’ junior paternal uncle Sri G. Govinda Rao; that Smt. Ramulamma died on 07.07.1997 and the sons of the petitioners’ junior paternal uncle filed O.S.No.116 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioners and others for partition of the properties, which included the abovementioned property and that the said suit was dismissed for default on 31.03.2008. That the I.A. filed by the plaintiff therein for condonation of delay of 656 days in filing the application for setting aside the default order is pending. The petitioners pleaded that some third parties proposed to encroach upon the property without any manner of right, that they have also approached respondent No.1 for sanction of layout over the land in question and that respondent No.1 in turn has forwarded the application to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mandal Surveyor concerned for verification, enquiry and submission of report. The petitioners got issued registered notice, dated 03.01.2011, to the respondents not to approve or sanction the proposed layout. Anticipating that respondent No.1 may approve the layout, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. The facts noted above would show that there is a dispute regarding title between the petitioners on the one side and the sons of their paternal uncle on the other side. If the petitioners have subsisting interest in the property, they have to approach the competent Court of law for declaration of their title or any other appropriate relief and that if they feel existence of threat of the land being used by third parties, they need to claim an injunctive relief in respect thereof. Respondent No.1 is not expected to make a detailed examination of the claims of the parties regarding title. At best, it may examine the prima facie title of the persons, who apply for approval of the layout. While undertaking such exercise, respondent No.1 shall keep in mind the objections of the petitioners also and take a decision in this regard. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.22640 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 09.08.2011 ES