THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.Nos. 20207 & 20709 of 2009. COMMON ORDER: Both these writ petitions can be dealt with commonly and disposed of, as they are instituted by the rival parties. The petitioner in W.P.No. 20709 of 2002 questions the legality and validity of the orders/proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent-Grampanchayat, Parkal, Warangal District granting permission to the 3rd respondent for construction of a residential house. The case of this writ petitioner is that he has purchased land of an extent of 234 sq. yards, in plot No.5, Parkal village from one Mohd Suleman Gori S/o: Azam Gori under a registered sale deed dt. 30.3.1967 and ever since, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the vacant site. Proposing to construct a commercial complex in the said site, he appears to have submitted an application on 6.11.1993 to the 1st respondent Grampanchayat to grant necessary permission. The said application was submitted in the name of Smt. Raja Laxmi and Merugu Srinivas and the 3rd respondent herein. The said Raja Laxmi and Srinivas are said to be his wife and son and the 3rd respondent herein is said to be the grand daughter of the petitioner. The Grampanchayat has granted the necessary permission on 24.11.1993. He also asserts that three shop rooms were also constructed over the site in question by dividing the same into three different parts. He has also been leasing out the said shop rooms to the 3rd parties. It appears that the 3rd respondent has also submitted an application to the 1st respondent Grampanchayat on 11.7.2002 seeking permission for construction of 1st floor and toilets in the ground floor over the commercial complex got constructed by the writ petitioner. The 1st respondent invited objections in this respect from the neighbouring owners. The writ petitioner appears to have lodged his objection on 12.8.2002 pointing out that the 3rd respondent/applicant has no title over the property and that she is not concerned with the building standing in the site for her to undertake construction in the 1st floor or toilets in the ground floor. However, without considering these objections, the Grampanchayat appears to have passed a resolution on 13.8.2002 resolving to grant permission in favour of the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent issued necessary permission on 30.9.2002 permitting the 3rd respondent to construct the 1st floor and toilets in the ground floor. That said order is challenged in this writ petition. W.P.No. 20207 of 2002 has been instituted by the 3rd respondent in W.P.No. 20709 of 2002. The writ petitioner therein is impleaded as 2nd respondent to this writ petition. In the affidavit, it is stated that an extent of 54 sq. yards comprising of the building bearing D.No. 3-573 has been allotted to her by the 2nd respondent’s grandfather during November 1993 and accordingly she acquired title to the said property and hence applied for construction to be carried out in the 1st floor of the building, which is in existence. It is the case of this writ petitioner that it is she who has obtained permission for construction of shopping complex in the ground floor during 1993-94 and constructed the same. In fact this writ petition is in all respects a counter claim to the claim made by the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 20709 of 2002. Each one of these petitioners are asserting their respective title to the 54 sq. yards of site over which construction in the ground floor was already made, after obtaining necessary permission from the local Grampanchayat. Sri.Ravindranath Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 20709 of 2002 strenuously contends that the Grampanchayat cannot go into the question of determining the title of the parties and in fact prima facie it has to be satisfied, that the applicant who solicits building permission does possess title to the land over which construction was sought to be made and the Grampanchayat, in ignorance of the Registered sale deed dt. 30.3.1967, which clearly evidences that it is the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 20709 of 2002, who had acquired entire extent of land by way of purchase from a third party and it is not the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 20709 of 2002, has been erroneously proceeding in permitting her to make constructions over the building, which was got constructed by him. To my mind, these questions are essentially and intrinsically are revolving around the right, title and possession of the respective parties. Such disputed questions of fact are incapable of being decided in this writ petition, for, they require collection of lot of evidence on either side. The learned Counsel has brought to my notice that a civil suit bearing O.S.No. 560 of 2007 has been instituted by him on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Warangal to which suit the 3rd respondent in W.P.No. 20709 of 2002 has been impleaded as the sole defendant. The suit has been instituted seeking the following reliefs: “1.Declare that the plaintiff is the title-holder of the suit schedule property. 2.Direct the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property and deliver the vacant possession to the plaintiff. 3. Direct the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,26,000/- towards past mesne profits and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. from the date of suit to the date of delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of suit to the date of realisation. 4. Direct the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the costs of this suit. 5. Grant any further or better relief that deems fit and property in the circumstances of the suit.” From the above, it is crystal clear that the present writ petitioner in W.P.No. 20709 of 2002 sought for a declaration that he is the title holder of the suit schedule property, which is none other than the subject matter in this very writ petition. He has also sought for the 3rd respondent in W.No. 20709 of 2002 to vacate the said property and deliver vacant possession thereof to him. It is thus clear that fairly a comprehensive civil suit between the parties has already been laid. It would therefore be appropriate for both the parties to contest and sort out their respective disputes in the said suit. However, it is only appropriate to observe the fact that the 3rd respondent in W.P.No. 20709 of 2002 and the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 20207 of 2002 had made constructions either in the ground floor or in the 1st floor, should not come in the way of deciding such questions in the civil suit. The equities between competing parties will be decided by the civil court depending upon the evidence that is marshalled before it. I therefore consider it appropriate to leave the questions raised in this writ petition to be decided in the comprehensive civil suit filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 20709 of 2009 to establish his title and for recovery of possession thereof from the 3rd respondent in the said suit. With the above observation, both these writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 8.12.2009. Krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.Nos. 20207 and 20709 of 2002. Dt: 8.12.2009.